Liji Mathew1, Anil Mathew1, S K Saranya1, Ashika S Mohan1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita School of Dentistry, Kochi, Kerala, 6820411, India.
Abstract
Gingival retraction is essential to get a dry and debris free field, which enables the impression material to flow into the gingival sulcus and record the area apical to the finish line. Effective gingival retraction without damaging periodontal tissue is extremely important. Objective: To comparatively evaluate the amount of inflammation, as assessed by TNF-α in GCF induced by three different gingival retraction techniques. Methods: Ten patients with a minimum of three teeth that required biomechanical preparation for fixed prostheses and acceptable oral hygiene with no periodontal pathology were included. The patients each received an oral prophylaxis. After a washout period of 10 days patients with gingival index scores of 0 or 1 were included. Measurements of TNF-α was done at baseline, after 30 min, after 7 days and after 28 days using ELISA test kit specific to TNF-α. Results: The sample population for whom Magic Foam cord was used showed a massive reduction in the amount of TNF -α, from 78% at 7 days to 18.6% at 28 days. There was a reduction in the percentage of TNF -α produced in the samples where normal knitted cord was used and for those where Expasyl was used from 95% to 64.2% and from 70% to 48.3% respectively. Conclusion: Maximum amount of inflammatory response was seen with plain knitted gingival retraction cord. This was followed by Expasyl gingival retraction system and the least amount of inflammatory cytokine was recorded with Magic Foam retraction cord.
Gingival retraction is essential to get a dry and debris free field, which enables the impression material to flow into the gingival sulcus and record the area apical to the finish line. Effective gingival retraction without damaging periodontal tissue is extremely important. Objective: To comparatively evaluate the amount of inflammation, as assessed by TNF-α in GCF induced by three different gingival retraction techniques. Methods: Ten patients with a minimum of three teeth that required biomechanical preparation for fixed prostheses and acceptable oral hygiene with no periodontal pathology were included. The patients each received an oral prophylaxis. After a washout period of 10 days patients with gingival index scores of 0 or 1 were included. Measurements of TNF-α was done at baseline, after 30 min, after 7 days and after 28 days using ELISA test kit specific to TNF-α. Results: The sample population for whom Magic Foam cord was used showed a massive reduction in the amount of TNF -α, from 78% at 7 days to 18.6% at 28 days. There was a reduction in the percentage of TNF -α produced in the samples where normal knitted cord was used and for those where Expasyl was used from 95% to 64.2% and from 70% to 48.3% respectively. Conclusion: Maximum amount of inflammatory response was seen with plain knitted gingival retraction cord. This was followed by Expasyl gingival retraction system and the least amount of inflammatory cytokine was recorded with Magic Foam retraction cord.