• Vincent Bennani, Donald Schwass, and Nicholas Chandler.
• Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
• J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct 1; 139 (10): 1354-63.

BackgroundThe authors reviewed and compared gingival retraction techniques used for implants and teeth.Types Of Studies ReviewedThe authors searched the literature using article databases Ovid MEDLINE up to May 2008, PubMED and Google Scholar (advanced search) and the following search terms: gingival retraction, implant abutment, impressions, cement-retained implant restoration, impression coping, peri-implant tissue, emergence profile and tissue conditioning.ResultsThe authors found insufficient evidence relating to gingival displacement techniques for impression making for implant dentistry. Gingival retraction techniques and materials are designed primarily for peridental applications; the authors considered their relevance to peri-implant applications and determined that further research and new product development are needed.Clinical ImplicationsThe use of injectable materials that form an expanding matrix to provide gingival retraction offers effective exposure of preparation finish lines and is suitable for conventional impression-making methods or computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing digital impressions in many situations. There are, however, limitations with any retraction technique, including injectable matrices, for situations in which clinicians place deep implants.

9 keywords...

hide…