Premium
Gingival Retraction Methods: A Systematic Review
Author(s) -
Tabassum Sadia,
Adnan Samira,
Khan Farhan Raza
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12522
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , orthodontics , cinahl , clinical trial , pathology , psychiatry , psychological intervention
Abstract Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to assess the gingival retraction methods in terms of the amount of gingival retraction achieved and changes observed in various clinical parameters: gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and attachment loss (AL). Methods Data sources included three major databases, PubMed, CINAHL plus (Ebsco), and Cochrane, along with hand search. Search was made using the key terms in different permutations of gingival retraction* AND displacement method* OR technique* OR agents OR material* OR medicament*. Results The initial search results yielded 145 articles which were narrowed down to 10 articles using a strict eligibility criteria of including clinical trials or experimental studies on gingival retraction methods with the amount of tooth structure gained and assessment of clinical parameters as the outcomes conducted on human permanent teeth only. Gingival retraction was measured in 6/10 studies whereas the clinical parameters were assessed in 5/10 studies. Conclusions The total number of teeth assessed in the 10 included studies was 400. The most common method used for gingival retraction was chemomechanical. The results were heterogeneous with regards to the outcome variables. No method seemed to be significantly superior to the other in terms of gingival retraction achieved. Clinical parameters were not significantly affected by the gingival retraction method.