1 Citazione (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE:To compare two systems used for conditioning the gingival sulcus and exposing the finish line before the final impression for a fixed denture: retraction cords and diode laser. METHODS:All subjects participating in the study had healthy gingival and periodontal status before intervention for fixed prosthesis. 74 abutments for complete crown restoration were randomly divided into two groups for displacing the gingival sulcus before the final impression: gingival retraction cords (RC) and diode laser (DL). The height of the clinical crowns was measured by a blinded examiner in three points of the buccal surface (mesial, midline and distal) at four different times: after tooth preparation (T0), 15 days after tooth preparation, before exposing the finish line with RC or with DL (T1), 10 minutes after exposing the finish line (T2), and 15 days after the final impression was taken (T3). The amount of gingival retraction produced (ΔT2-T1) and restoration to baseline (ΔT3-T1) were calculated. Ease of technique and patient comfort were evaluated through the Visual Analog Scale. The time required to carry out the technique and bleeding during and after the conditioning procedure were also evaluated.RESULTS:There was no difference between the two techniques with regard to the height differences: ΔT2-T1 was 0.65±0.33 for RC and 0.66±0.43 for the DL (P= 0.966), while ΔT3-T1 was 0.03±0.27 for RC and 0.02±0.46 for DL (P= 0.286). DL required less time, was easier for the operator and more comfortable than RC for the patient (all P<0.001).CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:The amount of gingival retraction and restoration to baseline resulting from use of gingival retraction cords or diode laser technique is similar, but diode laser required less time, was simpler for the operator and was more comfortable to the patient than retraction cords.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)131-134
Numero di pagine4
RivistaDefault journal
Volume31
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2018

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cita questo

@article{df7b7059abf649d8bc780e2a9d2c56c4,
title = "Gingival displacement using diode laser or retraction cords: A comparative clinical study",
abstract = "PURPOSE:To compare two systems used for conditioning the gingival sulcus and exposing the finish line before the final impression for a fixed denture: retraction cords and diode laser. METHODS:All subjects participating in the study had healthy gingival and periodontal status before intervention for fixed prosthesis. 74 abutments for complete crown restoration were randomly divided into two groups for displacing the gingival sulcus before the final impression: gingival retraction cords (RC) and diode laser (DL). The height of the clinical crowns was measured by a blinded examiner in three points of the buccal surface (mesial, midline and distal) at four different times: after tooth preparation (T0), 15 days after tooth preparation, before exposing the finish line with RC or with DL (T1), 10 minutes after exposing the finish line (T2), and 15 days after the final impression was taken (T3). The amount of gingival retraction produced (ΔT2-T1) and restoration to baseline (ΔT3-T1) were calculated. Ease of technique and patient comfort were evaluated through the Visual Analog Scale. The time required to carry out the technique and bleeding during and after the conditioning procedure were also evaluated.RESULTS:There was no difference between the two techniques with regard to the height differences: ΔT2-T1 was 0.65±0.33 for RC and 0.66±0.43 for the DL (P= 0.966), while ΔT3-T1 was 0.03±0.27 for RC and 0.02±0.46 for DL (P= 0.286). DL required less time, was easier for the operator and more comfortable than RC for the patient (all P<0.001).CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:The amount of gingival retraction and restoration to baseline resulting from use of gingival retraction cords or diode laser technique is similar, but diode laser required less time, was simpler for the operator and was more comfortable to the patient than retraction cords.",
author = "Dario Melilli and Giuseppe Pizzo and Rodolfo Mauceri and Domenica Matranga and Antonino Albanese and Antonino Albanese",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "131--134",
journal = "Default journal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gingival displacement using diode laser or retraction cords: A comparative clinical study

AU - Melilli, Dario

AU - Pizzo, Giuseppe

AU - Mauceri, Rodolfo

AU - Matranga, Domenica

AU - Albanese, Antonino

AU - Albanese, Antonino

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - PURPOSE:To compare two systems used for conditioning the gingival sulcus and exposing the finish line before the final impression for a fixed denture: retraction cords and diode laser. METHODS:All subjects participating in the study had healthy gingival and periodontal status before intervention for fixed prosthesis. 74 abutments for complete crown restoration were randomly divided into two groups for displacing the gingival sulcus before the final impression: gingival retraction cords (RC) and diode laser (DL). The height of the clinical crowns was measured by a blinded examiner in three points of the buccal surface (mesial, midline and distal) at four different times: after tooth preparation (T0), 15 days after tooth preparation, before exposing the finish line with RC or with DL (T1), 10 minutes after exposing the finish line (T2), and 15 days after the final impression was taken (T3). The amount of gingival retraction produced (ΔT2-T1) and restoration to baseline (ΔT3-T1) were calculated. Ease of technique and patient comfort were evaluated through the Visual Analog Scale. The time required to carry out the technique and bleeding during and after the conditioning procedure were also evaluated.RESULTS:There was no difference between the two techniques with regard to the height differences: ΔT2-T1 was 0.65±0.33 for RC and 0.66±0.43 for the DL (P= 0.966), while ΔT3-T1 was 0.03±0.27 for RC and 0.02±0.46 for DL (P= 0.286). DL required less time, was easier for the operator and more comfortable than RC for the patient (all P<0.001).CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:The amount of gingival retraction and restoration to baseline resulting from use of gingival retraction cords or diode laser technique is similar, but diode laser required less time, was simpler for the operator and was more comfortable to the patient than retraction cords.

AB - PURPOSE:To compare two systems used for conditioning the gingival sulcus and exposing the finish line before the final impression for a fixed denture: retraction cords and diode laser. METHODS:All subjects participating in the study had healthy gingival and periodontal status before intervention for fixed prosthesis. 74 abutments for complete crown restoration were randomly divided into two groups for displacing the gingival sulcus before the final impression: gingival retraction cords (RC) and diode laser (DL). The height of the clinical crowns was measured by a blinded examiner in three points of the buccal surface (mesial, midline and distal) at four different times: after tooth preparation (T0), 15 days after tooth preparation, before exposing the finish line with RC or with DL (T1), 10 minutes after exposing the finish line (T2), and 15 days after the final impression was taken (T3). The amount of gingival retraction produced (ΔT2-T1) and restoration to baseline (ΔT3-T1) were calculated. Ease of technique and patient comfort were evaluated through the Visual Analog Scale. The time required to carry out the technique and bleeding during and after the conditioning procedure were also evaluated.RESULTS:There was no difference between the two techniques with regard to the height differences: ΔT2-T1 was 0.65±0.33 for RC and 0.66±0.43 for the DL (P= 0.966), while ΔT3-T1 was 0.03±0.27 for RC and 0.02±0.46 for DL (P= 0.286). DL required less time, was easier for the operator and more comfortable than RC for the patient (all P<0.001).CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:The amount of gingival retraction and restoration to baseline resulting from use of gingival retraction cords or diode laser technique is similar, but diode laser required less time, was simpler for the operator and was more comfortable to the patient than retraction cords.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/294110

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 131

EP - 134

JO - Default journal

JF - Default journal

ER -