Journal of Prosthodontics
To investigate the pressure generated by different retraction materials using a novel gingival sulcus model.
Materials and Methods
A gingival sulcus model was made using a polymer frame filled with silicon. A pressure sensor and a sulcus‐fluid simulation were embedded into the silicon chamber to evaluate the pressure generated by different retraction materials. Six sizes of Ultrapak retraction cords (Ultradent, sizes #000 ‐ 3), 4 retraction pastes (Expazen, Expasyl, Acteon, Access Edge, Traxodent) and 2 retraction gels (Sulcus Blue, Racegel) were analyzed. The mean and median pressure, interquartile range, and standard deviation (SD) of n = 10 repeated measurements were calculated. Statistical analysis was conducted by Kruskal‐Wallis test for differences between the main groups of retraction materials, and Mann‐Whitney U‐test was performed to analyze differences between the single retraction materials.
Pressure (mean ± SD) generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size (48.26 ± 11.29 kPa, size #000 to 149.27 ± 28.75 kPa for #3). There was a significant difference between sizes (p < 0.01), except in #0 versus #1, and #2 versus #3. Retraction pastes generated pressures that ranged from 82.74 ± 29.29 kPa (Traxodent) to 524.35 ± 113.88 kPa (Expasyl). Retraction gels generated pressures from 38.96 ± 14.68 kPa (Racegel) to 95.15 ± 24.18 kPa (Sulcus Blue). Pressure generated by Expasyl was significantly higher than pressure generated by all other tested materials (p < 0.001).
Pressure generated by retraction pastes and gels depends on the consistency of the retraction material, while pressure generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size of cords. Expasyl was found to generate the highest pressure compared to all other retraction materials.
Dederichs, Marco; Fahmy, Mina D.; Kuepper, Harald; and Guentsch, Arndt, "Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model" (2019). School of Dentistry Faculty Research and Publications. 352.
ADA Accessible Version
Accepted version. Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 28, No. 7 (June 17, 2019): 784-789. DOI. © 2019 Wiley. Used with permission.