PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the gingival retraction methods in terms of the amount of gingival retraction achieved and changes observed in various clinical parameters: gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and attachment loss (AL). METHODS: Data sources included three major databases, PubMed, CINAHL plus (Ebsco), and Cochrane, along with hand search. Search was made using the key terms in different permutations of gingival retraction* AND displacement method* OR technique* OR agents OR material* OR medicament*. RESULTS: The initial search results yielded 145 articles which were narrowed down to 10 articles using a strict eligibility criteria of including clinical trials or experimental studies on gingival retraction methods with the amount of tooth structure gained and assessment of clinical parameters as the outcomes conducted on human permanent teeth only. Gingival retraction was measured in 6/10 studies whereas the clinical parameters were assessed in 5/10 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The total number of teeth assessed in the 10 included studies was 400. The most common method used for gingival retraction was chemomechanical. The results were heterogeneous with regards to the outcome variables. No method seemed to be significantly superior to the other in terms of gingival retraction achieved. Clinical parameters were not significantly affected by the gingival retraction method.
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the gingival retraction methods in terms of the amount of gingival retraction achieved and changes observed in various clinical parameters: gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and attachment loss (AL). METHODS: Data sources included three major databases, PubMed, CINAHL plus (Ebsco), and Cochrane, along with hand search. Search was made using the key terms in different permutations of gingival retraction* AND displacement method* OR technique* OR agents OR material* OR medicament*. RESULTS: The initial search results yielded 145 articles which were narrowed down to 10 articles using a strict eligibility criteria of including clinical trials or experimental studies on gingival retraction methods with the amount of tooth structure gained and assessment of clinical parameters as the outcomes conducted on human permanent teeth only. Gingival retraction was measured in 6/10 studies whereas the clinical parameters were assessed in 5/10 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The total number of teeth assessed in the 10 included studies was 400. The most common method used for gingival retraction was chemomechanical. The results were heterogeneous with regards to the outcome variables. No method seemed to be significantly superior to the other in terms of gingival retraction achieved. Clinical parameters were not significantly affected by the gingival retraction method.
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Thomas Oates; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Cyril Meyerowitz; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Marko Igic; Milena Kostic; Jelena Basic; Nebojsa Krunic; Ana Pejcic; Nikola Gligorijevic; Aleksandra Milic Lemic Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 1.927
Authors: Francesco Guido Mangano; Bidzina Margiani; Ivan Solop; Nadezhda Latuta; Oleg Admakin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Katharina Kuhn; David Zügel; Victor-Sebastian A Korbay; Thomas Papas; Sigmar Schnutenhaus; Ralph G Luthardt; Jens Dreyhaupt; Heike Rudolph Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 4.241