A Comparative Evaluation of Different Gingival Retraction Methods: A Double-blinded In Vivo Randomized Controlled Trial

Aims and background: Successful treatment of a fixed prosthesis relies on the procedure's accuracy. An important step is to make an accurate impression. The impression at the margins should have substantial thickness to prevent tears and distortion. This study evaluates three different gingival retraction materials, namely retraction cord with epinephrine, retraction paste and retraction gel, using sulcular width and sulcular depth. Materials and methods: The efficacy of the gingival retraction of retraction cord with epinephrine, retraction paste and retraction gel was evaluated by measuring the sulcus depth and sulcus width recorded in a single stage putty light body impression made with additional to silicone impression material. Results: The mean change in sulcus width for the retraction cord with epinephrine was 0.310, that for the retraction paste was 0.264, and that for the retraction paste was 0.287. The mean change in sulcus depth produced by retraction cord with epinephrine was 0.337, followed by retraction gel 0.309 and then retraction paste 0.305. Conclusion: Retraction cord with epinephrine was the most effective method of gingival retraction in terms of both sulcus width and depth when compared to retraction paste and retraction gel. Clinical significance: Comparison of sulcus width and depth resulted in a statistically significant difference between the gingival retraction achieved by retraction cord with epinephrine (Group A) and retraction gel (Group C). Since this study is an <i>in vivo</i>, double-blinded and randomized controlled trial, the inferences drawn can be applied to clinical practice.