World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Qualitative Analysis of Magic Foam and the Conventional Gingival Retraction Cord System in Dental Impressions

Manoj Shetty, Gaurav Shetty, Nivya John, Umesh Pai, Nitesh Shetty

Keywords : Gingival retraction, Magic foam cord, Retraction cord, Tissue management

Citation Information : Shetty M, Shetty G, John N, Pai U, Shetty N. A Qualitative Analysis of Magic Foam and the Conventional Gingival Retraction Cord System in Dental Impressions. World J Dent 2021; 12 (6):479-484.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1876

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 24-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: The present study was designed to clinically evaluate the efficacy of the magic foam retraction system and conventional retraction cords on the basis of the relative ease of working, the time required for placement, and the amount of gingival retraction. Materials and methods: Thirty-three (anterior and posterior each) abutment teeth were selected requiring full coverage restoration where more than one abutment teeth were to be prepared. After the preparation of the abutment teeth, the area was isolated thoroughly. Two impressions were made, one with the retraction cords being placed and the other with the magic foam retraction technique being used. Subjective ease of placement, the time required for placement, and the amount of gingival retraction by means of margin exposure were assessed. Results: The mean time taken for the magic foam retraction technique was 48.17 seconds and for the retraction cord technique was 131.5 seconds. In this study, the cord retraction technique was more successful for shoulder and chamfer margin preparations than the magic foam retraction technique. Also, the cord retraction technique was found to be more successful for anterior teeth than the magic foam retraction technique. The magic foam retraction technique was more successful for posterior teeth albeit not significantly. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, the magic foam retraction system appears to be a promising system with regard to reduced time for application and ease of placement. However, the amount of gingival retraction observed with the magic foam retraction system was significantly less than the retraction cord system. Clinical significance: The conventional retraction cord technique is the most popular tissue retraction system, however, it is technique-sensitive and time-consuming and also known to cause some attachment loss during manipulation. Magic foam retraction provides comparable results in less time without the loss of attachment that could help in maintaining the biological health of the tissue.


PDF Share
  1. Ferencz JL. Maintaining and enhancing gingival architecture in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(5):650–657. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90200-g.
  2. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Ercoli C. Tissue management with a new gingival retraction material: a preliminary clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(3):242–247. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90479-5.
  3. Akca EA, Yildirim E, Dalkiz M, et al. Effects of different retraction medicaments on gingival tissue. Quintessence Int 2006;37(1):53–59.
  4. Wöstmann B, Rehmann P, Trost D, et al. Effect of different retraction and impression techniques on the marginal fit of crowns. J Dent 2008;36(7):508–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.013.
  5. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(1):10–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.013.
  6. Beier U, Kranewitter R, Dumfahrt H. Quality of impressions after use of the magic FoamCord gingival retraction system - a clinical study of 269 abutment teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2008;22:143–147.
  7. Ortensi L, Strocchi ML. Modified custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(2):237–240. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.108453.
  8. Azzi R, Tsao TF, Carranza FA, et al. Comparative study of gingival retraction methods. J Pros Dent 1983;50(4):560. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90581-4.
  9. Bennani V, Aarts JM, Brunton P. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;2:410–415. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12581.
  10. Ramadan FA, El-Sadeek M, Hassanein ES. Histopathologic response of gingival tissues to hemodent and aluminum chloride solutions as tissue displacement materials. Egypt Dent J 1972;18(4):337–352.
  11. Mokbel AM, Mohammed YR. Local effect of applying aluminum chloride on the dento-gingival unit as a tissue displacement material: part I. Egypt Dent J 1973;19(1):35–48.
  12. Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, et al. Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):175–181. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90336-7.
  13. Phatale S, Marawar PP, Byakod G, et al. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: a histopathological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2010;14(1):35–39. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.65436.
  14. Singh AA, Rao BK, Gujjari AK. Evaluation of gingival displacement using foam cord and retraction cord: an in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2019;11(1):8–14. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_169_18.
  15. Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, et al. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0140-y.
  16. Veitz-Keenan A, Keenan JR. To cord or not to cord? that is still a question. Evid Based Dent 2017;18(1):21–22. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401222.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.