Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Comparison of effectiveness of gingival displacement using retraction cord and aluminum chloride gel.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07255976 (Comparison of Effectiveness of Gingival Displacement Using Retraction Cord and Aluminum Chloride Gel), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Effectiveness of Gingival Displacement Using Retraction Cord and Aluminum Chloride Gel
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
backgroundGingival displacement is essential during impression making for fixed restorations, as it allows the impression material to flow into the gingival sulcus and accurately record the finish line. This study compared the effectiveness of knitted gingival retraction cord (# 00) and 25% aluminum chloride gel in terms of horizontal gingival displacement, placement time, and bleeding control.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics, Dow International Dental College, Karachi. Sixty-six patients requiring full-coverage fixed restoration with equigingival margins were enrolled through consecutive sampling and randomly assigned into two equal groups (n = 33). The study was conducted in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. Group A received gingival displacement using a knitted retraction cord, whereas Group B received 25% aluminum chloride gel. Horizontal gingival displacement was measured on pre- and post-displacement casts using stereomicroscopy. Placement time was recorded in minutes, and bleeding control was assessed clinically. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Independent-samples t-test and chi-square test were applied, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsThe mean horizontal gingival displacement was significantly greater with retraction cord (266.74 ± 32.94 μm) than aluminum chloride gel (180.20 ± 27.64 μm) (p < 0.001). The placement time was significantly shorter for aluminum chloride gel (3.23 ± 0.13 min) than for retraction cord (5.30 ± 0.12 min). Bleeding control was also significantly better in the aluminum chloride gel group than in the retraction cord group (87.9% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.040).
conclusion25% aluminum chloride gel provided superior bleeding control and required less placement time, whereas retraction cord produced greater horizontal gingival displacement. Therefore, the choice of gingival displacement system should be guided by the clinical requirements of the procedure.
trial registrationNCT07255976, Initial Release 11/19/2025, Last Release 11/27/2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481985What 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.