Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Impact of four gingival retraction techniques on gingival tissue displacement and sulcus depth during digital impression procedures.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of four gingival retraction techniques—retraction cord with astringent (RCA), Expasyl paste (EXP), Magic FoamCord (MF), and diode laser troughing (LT)—on gingival displacement and periodontal health in digital impression workflows, specifically investigating whether the type of retraction method significantly influences horizontal and vertical tissue displacement, sulcus depth, and gingival height loss (GHL).
methodsThirty-two participants requiring full-coverage restorations on maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to four groups (n=8 per group). Gingival displacement was measured using pre- and post-retraction digital scans with an intraoral scanner. Horizontal and vertical displacement, sulcus depth, and GHL at 7, 15, and 30 days were recorded. Threshold analyses were performed to identify displacement values associated with increased GHL. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, and Pearson correlation (α = 0.05).
resultsRCA produced the greatest horizontal (0.72±0.08 mm) and vertical (0.68±0.07 mm) displacement and sulcus depth (0.75±0.09 mm), but also the highest GHL over time (0.28±0.04 mm at day 7; 0.10±0.02 mm at day 30). EXP demonstrated lower displacement values (horizontal: 0.48±0.03 mm; vertical: 0.42±0.04 mm) and the lowest GHL across follow-up periods. MF and LT yielded intermediate results. Nonlinear threshold behavior was observed: GHL increased sharply beyond ~0.55 mm horizontal and ~0.60 mm vertical displacement.
conclusionsExpasyl paste provides sufficient gingival displacement for digital impressions while minimizing tissue trauma, whereas retraction cords maximize sulcular widening at the cost of gingival health. Magic FoamCord and laser troughing are intermediate alternatives. Identifying horizontal and vertical displacement thresholds can guide clinicians in balancing effective retraction with periodontal preservation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optimal gingival retraction is essential for accurate digital impressions. Expasyl and similar atraumatic systems may improve patient outcomes by providing adequate margin exposure while preserving periodontal integrity, informing contemporary digital prosthodontic workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41530458What 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.