• Özlem Acar, Selim Erkut, Tuncer Burak Özçelik, Erdem Ozdemır, and Mehtap Akçil.
• Research Fellow, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetics, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.. Electronic address: zlemacr@gmail.com.
• J Prosthet Dent. 2014 May 1; 111 (5): 388-94.

Statement Of ProblemIt is not clear whether newly introduced cordless displacement systems are better able to manage gingiva than conventional systems.PurposeThe purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the gingival management ability of 4 different displacement methods with a standardized subgingival preparation finish line.Material And MethodsThe effects of 4 displacement techniques on gingival management and impression quality were evaluated by means of 6 evaluation criteria. A subgingival preparation finish line of between 1 and 2 mm was ensured, and the buccal aspects of 252 (n=63) teeth were clinically assessed for ease of application, time spent, bleeding, remnants, and dilatation. The complete reproduction of the preparation finish line and the bubble and void formations on polyether impressions were also evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed with the χ(2) test (α=.05). The Bonferroni correction was used to control Type I error for the pairwise comparison groups (α=.008).ResultsStatistically significant differences were found for all criteria among the groups (P<.05). The nonimpregnated displacement cord group was the least effective group in terms of bleeding and impression quality (P<.008). The aluminum chloride impregnated cord group and the displacement paste with cap group were found to be comparable in terms of remnants, dilatation, and impression quality (P>.008). The retraction cap with paste group showed better results for ease of application, time spent, and bleeding than the aluminum chloride impregnated cord group (P<.008). Although the group with aluminum chloride impregnated cord, displacement paste, and cap showed better results for dilatation, it was time consuming and difficult (P<.008).ConclusionsExcept for the nonimpregnated cord group, all of the groups were comparable and clinically useful, with perfect or acceptable impression qualities.Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

33 keywords...

hide…