Abstract
Statement of problem
A high percentage of fixed prosthodontic restorations require a subgingival margin
placement, which requires the practice of gingival displacement or a deflection procedure
to replicate the margins in impression.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to learn the different gingival displacement techniques
that are currently used by dentists in their practice and to compare the current concepts
of gingival displacement with previously published articles.
Materials and methods
A survey of questions pertaining to gingival deflection methods was distributed as
part of continuing education (CE) course material to dentists attending CE meetings
in 7 states in the U.S. and 1 Canadian province. Question topics included initial
patient assessment procedures, gingival displacement methods, dentist’s knowledge
and assessment of systemic manifestations, and brand names of materials used.
Results
Ninety-four percent of the participants were general practitioners with 24.11 ±12.5
years of experience. Ninety-two percent used gingival displacement cords, while 20.2%
used a soft tissue laser and 32% used electrosurgery as an adjunct. Sixty percent
of the dentists used displacement cords impregnated with a medicament. Of the preimpregnated
cords, 29% were impregnated with epinephrine, 13% with aluminum chloride, and 18%
with aluminum potassium sulfate.
Conclusion
The study showed a steady decrease compared with results of previously published articles
in the use of epinephrine as a gingival deflection medicament.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords.J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53: 525-531
- Impression materials and techniques used for cast restorations in eight states.J Am Dent Assoc. 1980; 100: 696-699
- Current methods of finish-line exposure by practicing prosthodontists.J Prosthodont. 1999; 8: 163-170
- Medical emergencies in the dental office.Elsevier Health Sciences, 2007: 381-382 (459-460)
- A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health.J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35: 1053-1058
- A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 388-394
- A double-blind randomized clinical trial of two techniques for gingival displacement.J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41: 306-313
- A comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 107: 388-392
- Comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 163-167
- What category of impression material is best for your practice?.J Am Dent Assoc. 1997; 128: 1026-1028
- A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94: 112-117
- Tissue management in fixed prosthodontics.J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 31: 628-636
- Exposing the gingival margin: A systematic approach for the control of hemorrhage.J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51: 647-651
- Current concepts in gingival displacement.Dent Clin N Am. 2004; 48: 433-444
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 24, 2015
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
