Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 350  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 440-443

Assessment of aluminum chloride retraction cords, expasyl, and tetrahydrozoline-soaked retraction systems in gingival retraction


1 Department of Dentistry, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Crown, Bridge, and Implantology, Patna Dental College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Malla Reddy Institute of Dental Sciences, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
6 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Malla Reddy Institute of Dental Sciences, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Rani Indira Sinha
Department of Pharmacology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_131_20

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess different gingival displacement systems such as aluminum chloride retraction cords, expasyl, and tetrahydrozoline-soaked retraction cord to record intracrevicular margins of tooth preparations. Materials and Methods: This study included 60 patients. Patients were divided into four groups of 15 each. In group I, aluminum chloride retraction cords, in group II expasyl, in group III tetrahydrozoline-soaked retraction cord, and in group IV no retraction cord were used. Results: The mean gingival displacement (μm) in group I was 825.6, in group II was 482.1, in group III was 742.3, and in group IV was 214.8. Significant difference was seen in between groups by one-way analysis of variance as P < 0.05. Post hoc Tukey analysis showed significant difference during multiple comparison between groups. Conclusion: Authors found that maximum gingival retraction was achieved with aluminum chloride retraction cords followed by tetrahydrozoline and expasyl.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed61    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded3    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal