ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement and clinical efficacy using polyvinyl siloxane foam and retraction cord systems: A randomized controlled in vivo study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. Methods and materials: 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. Result: 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. Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.