SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles
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.
License: CC BY-NC 4.0
Published Online: 24-11-2021
Copyright Statement: Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.
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.
© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.