JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 265
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 8-14

Evaluation of gingival displacement using foam cord and retraction cord: An in vivo study

1 Department of Prosthodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Oral Biology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, JSS Dental College and Hospital, Mysore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amith A Singh
Department of Prosthodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_169_18

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Newer gingival displacement materials such as magic foam are available now and hence, there is a need to assess those materials with the commonly used gingival retraction cord. This study aimed to evaluate the gingival displacement width obtained using plain retraction cord and magic foam cord on an unprepared mandibular molar. Materials and Methods: Twelve patients in the age group of 20–30 years satisfying the inclusion criteria were selected. For each patient, pre- and post-displacement impressions were made using regular body addition silicone. The predisplacement impression served as the control. Gingival displacement procedures were performed in the buccal gingival sulcus of unprepared 1st mandibular molar. Both pre- and post-displacement impressions were sectioned and evaluated using a profile projector. The values were tabulated and analyzed using SPSS 16 software. Results: There was an increase of 62.4% in width of the gingival sulcus when displaced with cord and 61.6% increase using magic foam cord. The retraction cord provided 0.8% more gingival displacement when compared to the magic foam cord, which was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Weighing the pros and cons, it can be concluded that magic foam cord could be preferred over plain retraction cord as both methods provided almost the same amount of gingival retraction, and magic foam cord caused less trauma to the gingiva, was less time consuming, and easy to use.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded438    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal