Literature DB >> 6368802

Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods.

D J Weir, B H Williams.   

Abstract

The following conclusions were made after statistical analysis. There was no significant difference between racemic epinephrine cord and aluminum sulfate cord. Both racemic epinephrine cord and aluminum sulfate cord were more effective than nonmedicated cord. There was no difference between dry cord and water-saturated cord. Hemorrhage control with a cord saturated in Hemodent was more effective than water-saturated or dry cords. The racemic epinephrine cord was not superior to the aluminum sulfate cord, so the dentist could eliminate a cord with potential systemic effects and substitute the more innocuous cord. Hemodent approximately doubled the hemostasis success of any cord used in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6368802     DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(84)90214-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  10 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report.

Authors:  Ankit Gupta; D R Prithviraj; Deepti Gupta; D P Shruti
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2012-07-08

2.  Clinical success rates for polyether crown impressions when mixed dynamically and statically.

Authors:  Marc Schmitter; Glen H Johnson; Clovis Faggion; Christina Klose; Gergo Mitov; Frank P Nothdurft; Peter R Pospiech; Peter Rammelsberg; Brigitte Ohlmann; Stefanie Schwarz; Thomas Stober; Petra Schiller; Maria Pritsch
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Gingival Retraction using Polyvinyl Acetate Strips and Conventional Retraction Cord - An in Vivo Study.

Authors:  M Shivasakthy; Syed Asharaf Ali
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-09-16

4.  Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study.

Authors:  Jignesh Chaudhari; Paranjay Prajapati; Jayanti Patel; Rajesh Sethuraman; Y G Naveen
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

Review 5.  Gingival Retraction Methods for Fabrication of Fixed Partial Denture: Literature Review.

Authors:  Safari S; Vossoghi Sheshkalani Ma; Vossoghi Sheshkalani Mi; Hoseini Ghavam F; Hamedi M
Journal:  J Dent Biomater       Date:  2016-06

6.  Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy.

Authors:  Vijeta Gajbhiye; Rajlakshmi Banerjee; Priti Jaiswal; Anuj Chandak; Usha Radke
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2019 Apr-Jun

7.  Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study.

Authors:  Rahul Madaan; Jyoti Paliwal; Vineet Sharma; Kamal K Meena; Ashish Dadarwal; Roshni Kumar
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-07

Review 8.  A review on common chemical hemostatic agents in restorative dentistry.

Authors:  Pardis Tarighi; Maryam Khoroushi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2014-07

9.  Effect of various chemical agents used in gingival retraction systems on smear layer: Scanning electron microscope study.

Authors:  Krishna Shivraj Lahoti
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

10.  Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An in vivo study.

Authors:  Meenakshi Thimmappa; Mehak Bhatia; Prakash Somani; D R V Kumar
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.