Related Experiment Videos
[Access to the intracrevicular space in preparations for fixed prosthesis]
J Porzier1, L Benner-Jordan, B Bourdeau
1Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire de Paris VII.
Les Cahiers De Prothese
|March 1, 1991
Summary
Subgingival preparation margins pose challenges for dental impressions. Various gingival retraction techniques exist, including mechanical, chemico-mechanical, and surgical methods, each with potential side effects.
Area of Science:
- Restorative Dentistry
- Periodontology
- Dental Materials Science
Context:
- Preparation margins often extend subgingivally, complicating dental impression procedures.
- Subgingival margins present challenges for periodontal health and accurate adaptation assessment.
- Gingival tissue can obstruct impression material access to critical margin areas.
Purpose:
- To review and compare various gingival retraction techniques for subgingival margins.
- To evaluate the efficacy and potential sequelae of mechanical, chemico-mechanical, and surgical retraction methods.
- To identify optimal techniques that ensure accurate impressions without compromising periodontal health.
Summary:
- Gingival retraction techniques include mechanical (copper bands, ring collars, retraction cords), chemico-mechanical (impregnated cords), and surgical (Ingraham's diamonds, electrosurgery, CO2 laser) methods.
- 15.5% ferric sulfate impregnated cords offer effective retraction and hemostasis.
- Surgical techniques can simultaneously prepare margins and retract tissue, but all methods can cause minor gingival tissue loss.
Impact:
- Understanding these techniques is crucial for achieving accurate dental restorations.
- Proper technique selection minimizes iatrogenic damage to the gingival tissues.
- Informed choices among retraction methods can improve both restorative outcomes and periodontal health.