一项随机对照体内研究：使用聚氯乙烯硅氧烷泡沫和收缩索系统对牙龈移位和临床疗效的比较评估

Q1 Medicine

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Pub Date : 2025-07-26 DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.07.016

Aditya Acharya , Lekha K.P. , Raisa Chodankar , Yash Alpesh Zawar , Konark Patil , Adithi Rao

{"title":"一项随机对照体内研究：使用聚氯乙烯硅氧烷泡沫和收缩索系统对牙龈移位和临床疗效的比较评估","authors":"Aditya Acharya , Lekha K.P. , Raisa Chodankar , Yash Alpesh Zawar , Konark Patil , Adithi Rao","doi":"10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.07.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Every tooth in the arch and the soft tissues around the prepared tooth need to be replicated in the impression. To prevent tearing during impression removal, it is essential to ensure sufficient sulcus width. To date, mechanical, chemico-mechanical, electrosurgical, surgical, and laser methods have been used to accomplish gingival retraction. The purpose of both clinical and laboratory analysis of the efficacies of chemically impregnated retraction cord and polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction systems is based on the relative amount of vertical and horizontal gingival displacement, time of placement, and the presence or absence of bleeding.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and materials</h3><div>A total of 30 participants aged 20–40 years were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and quality assessment was conducted according to the CONSORT checklist (CTRI/2022/10/046181). In a split-mouth design, retraction was done using 25 % aluminium sulfate-impregnated retraction cords and Magic FoamCord (MFC). The Mann-Whitney and T-tests were used for data analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>Mann-Whitney Test concluded that for vertical gingival retraction cord and Magic foam at 2nd M are statistically insignificant in all three sites (p > 0.05). The mean horizontal displacement achieved at the second molar and second premolar for retraction cord was 0.36 ± 0.07 mm, which was greater than MFC, 0.24 ± 0.06 mm (p = 0.001; 95 % CI). The T-test used for the time of placement between retraction cord and magic foam cord was significant (p < 0.001). The gingiva was observed for presence or absence of bleeding soon after retrieval of the retraction cord and the MFC.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Retraction cords provide greater horizontal displacement but are more time-consuming and traumatic compared to MFC, which is more time-efficient and less invasive. This highlights the need to balance efficacy and efficiency in clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","volume":"15 5","pages":"Pages 1103-1107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement and clinical efficacy using polyvinyl siloxane foam and retraction cord systems: A randomized controlled in vivo study\",\"authors\":\"Aditya Acharya , Lekha K.P. , Raisa Chodankar , Yash Alpesh Zawar , Konark Patil , Adithi Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.07.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Every tooth in the arch and the soft tissues around the prepared tooth need to be replicated in the impression. To prevent tearing during impression removal, it is essential to ensure sufficient sulcus width. To date, mechanical, chemico-mechanical, electrosurgical, surgical, and laser methods have been used to accomplish gingival retraction. The purpose of both clinical and laboratory analysis of the efficacies of chemically impregnated retraction cord and polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction systems is based on the relative amount of vertical and horizontal gingival displacement, time of placement, and the presence or absence of bleeding.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and materials</h3><div>A total of 30 participants aged 20–40 years were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and quality assessment was conducted according to the CONSORT checklist (CTRI/2022/10/046181). In a split-mouth design, retraction was done using 25 % aluminium sulfate-impregnated retraction cords and Magic FoamCord (MFC). The Mann-Whitney and T-tests were used for data analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>Mann-Whitney Test concluded that for vertical gingival retraction cord and Magic foam at 2nd M are statistically insignificant in all three sites (p > 0.05). The mean horizontal displacement achieved at the second molar and second premolar for retraction cord was 0.36 ± 0.07 mm, which was greater than MFC, 0.24 ± 0.06 mm (p = 0.001; 95 % CI). The T-test used for the time of placement between retraction cord and magic foam cord was significant (p < 0.001). The gingiva was observed for presence or absence of bleeding soon after retrieval of the retraction cord and the MFC.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Retraction cords provide greater horizontal displacement but are more time-consuming and traumatic compared to MFC, which is more time-efficient and less invasive. This highlights the need to balance efficacy and efficiency in clinical practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research\",\"volume\":\"15 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1103-1107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426825001605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426825001605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

弓上的每颗牙齿和准备好的牙齿周围的软组织都需要在印模中复制。为了防止在印模去除过程中撕裂，必须确保足够的沟宽度。迄今为止，机械、化学机械、电外科、外科和激光方法已被用于完成牙龈后缩。临床和实验室分析化学浸渍牵张索和聚乙烯烷泡沫牵张系统的有效性的目的是基于牙龈垂直和水平位移的相对量，放置的时间，以及是否存在出血。方法与材料随机对照试验30例，年龄20 ~ 40岁，按照CONSORT检查表（CTRI/2022/10/046181）进行质量评价。在裂口设计中，使用25%硫酸铝浸透的收放索和Magic FoamCord （MFC）完成收放。采用Mann-Whitney检验和t检验进行数据分析。结果经mann - whitney检验，垂直牙龈牵张索和Magic foam在第2 M三个部位均无统计学意义(p >；0.05)。后收索第二磨牙和第二前磨牙的平均水平位移为0.36±0.07 mm，高于MFC的0.24±0.06 mm (p = 0.001；95% ci)。牵缩索与神奇泡沫索放置时间的t检验差异有统计学意义(p <；0.001)。在收回牵索和MFC后不久，观察牙龈是否存在出血。结论与MFC相比，牵回索提供更大的水平位移，但更费时，创伤性更大，更省时，创伤性更小。这突出了在临床实践中平衡疗效和效率的必要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparative evaluation of gingival displacement and clinical efficacy using polyvinyl siloxane foam and retraction cord systems: A randomized controlled in vivo study

Every tooth in the arch and the soft tissues around the prepared tooth need to be replicated in the impression. To prevent tearing during impression removal, it is essential to ensure sufficient sulcus width. To date, mechanical, chemico-mechanical, electrosurgical, surgical, and laser methods have been used to accomplish gingival retraction. The purpose of both clinical and laboratory analysis of the efficacies of chemically impregnated retraction cord and polyvinyl siloxane foam retraction systems is based on the relative amount of vertical and horizontal gingival displacement, time of placement, and the presence or absence of bleeding.

Methods and materials

A total of 30 participants aged 20–40 years were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and quality assessment was conducted according to the CONSORT checklist (CTRI/2022/10/046181). In a split-mouth design, retraction was done using 25 % aluminium sulfate-impregnated retraction cords and Magic FoamCord (MFC). The Mann-Whitney and T-tests were used for data analysis.

Result

Mann-Whitney Test concluded that for vertical gingival retraction cord and Magic foam at 2nd M are statistically insignificant in all three sites (p > 0.05). The mean horizontal displacement achieved at the second molar and second premolar for retraction cord was 0.36 ± 0.07 mm, which was greater than MFC, 0.24 ± 0.06 mm (p = 0.001; 95 % CI). The T-test used for the time of placement between retraction cord and magic foam cord was significant (p < 0.001). The gingiva was observed for presence or absence of bleeding soon after retrieval of the retraction cord and the MFC.

Conclusion

Retraction cords provide greater horizontal displacement but are more time-consuming and traumatic compared to MFC, which is more time-efficient and less invasive. This highlights the need to balance efficacy and efficiency in clinical practice.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

133

审稿时长

167 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research (JOBCR)is the official journal of the Craniofacial Research Foundation (CRF). The journal aims to provide a common platform for both clinical and translational research and to promote interdisciplinary sciences in craniofacial region. JOBCR publishes content that includes diseases, injuries and defects in the head, neck, face, jaws and the hard and soft tissues of the mouth and jaws and face region; diagnosis and medical management of diseases specific to the orofacial tissues and of oral manifestations of systemic diseases; studies on identifying populations at risk of oral disease or in need of specific care, and comparing regional, environmental, social, and access similarities and differences in dental care between populations; diseases of the mouth and related structures like salivary glands, temporomandibular joints, facial muscles and perioral skin; biomedical engineering, tissue engineering and stem cells. The journal publishes reviews, commentaries, peer-reviewed original research articles, short communication, and case reports.