Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement and clinical efficacy using polyvinyl siloxane foam and retraction...

Every tooth in the arch and the soft tissues around the prepared tooth need to be replicated in the impression. To prevent tearing during impression removal, it is essential to ensure sufficient sulcus width. To date, mechanical, chemico-mechanical, electrosurgical, surgical, and laser methods have been used to accomplish gingival retraction. The purpose of both clinical and laboratory analysis of the efficacies of chemically impregnated retraction cord and polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction systems is based on the relative amount of vertical and horizontal gingival displacement, time of placement, and the presence or absence of bleeding.

A total of 30 participants aged 20-40 years were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and quality assessment was conducted according to the CONSORT checklist (CTRI/2022/10/046181). In a split-mouth design, retraction was done using 25 % aluminium sulfate-impregnated retraction cords and Magic FoamCord (MFC). The Mann-Whitney and T-tests were used for data analysis.

Mann-Whitney Test concluded that for vertical gingival retraction cord and Magic foam at 2nd M are statistically insignificant in all three sites (p > 0.05). The mean horizontal displacement achieved at the second molar and second premolar for retraction cord was 0.36 ± 0.07 mm, which was greater than MFC, 0.24 ± 0.06 mm (p = 0.001; 95 % CI). The T-test used for the time of placement between retraction cord and magic foam cord was significant (p < 0.001). The gingiva was observed for presence or absence of bleeding soon after retrieval of the retraction cord and the MFC.

Retraction cords provide greater horizontal displacement but are more time-consuming and traumatic compared to MFC, which is more time-efficient and less invasive. This highlights the need to balance efficacy and efficiency in clinical practice.