Author:
Alraheam Islam Abd,Hattar Susan,Al-Asmar Aya,Alhadidi Abeer,Hamour Saif Abu,Aldroubi Amira,Sawair Faleh A.
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
An accurate impression is an essential procedure for fabricating indirect fixed restorations. To achieve a precise final impression, the management of gingival tissue is without doubt a crucial.
Aim
To evaluate the use of different gingival displacement techniques among dental clinicians and to assess their associated knowledge and technique preferences.
Methods
A self-designed survey was created electronically and sent to a list of dentists. The survey was composed of multiple sections. Participants who stated that they do not use GD methods were asked to answer the survey questions based on their knowledge. Descriptive statistics were generated, andChi-square test was used to examine the association between the different variables.
Results
A total of 188 dentists participated in this study. The majority 144 (76.6%) use GD in their practice. When asked which technique yields a more accurate impression with lower incidence of repeating the impression, 93 (64.6%) reported retraction cord technique with a hemostatic agent results in a higher impression accuracy, while only 14 (9.7%) declared the retraction paste technique as being more accurate.
Conclusion
The cordless GD technique is believed to be easier, faster, and less traumatic to the gingival tissues, nevertheless, the outcome of dental impressions is believed to be more predictable with the use of conventional retraction cords and hemostatic medicaments.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Wang Y, Fan F, Li X, et al. Influence of gingival retraction paste versus cord on periodontal health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:234–44.
2. Donovan TE, Chee WW. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dental Clinics. 2004;48:433–44.
3. Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA, et al. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:1053–8.
4. Martins FV, Santana RB, Fonseca EM. Efficacy of conventional cord versus cordless techniques for gingival displacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125:46–55.
5. Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dental Clinics. 2004;48:445–70.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献