Gingival Retraction for Digital Scan Data

Istanbul University

Status: Completed

Conditions: Data Accuracy, Bleeding Control

Treatments: Procedure: Group D: Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.); Procedure: Group C: Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.); Procedure: Group A: Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD); Procedure: Group B: Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT07119281

mbenli (Other Identifier)

Details and patient eligibility

About

The study aims to identify which retraction method offers optimal balance between tissue displacement, scan clarity, and patient comfort, particularly in the esthetic zone, while avoiding the use of CBCT. Results will guide clinicians in selecting the most effective and minimally invasive approach for digital impression workflows.

Full description

This prospective clinical study investigates the impact of various gingival retraction techniques on scan accuracy, gingival displacement, bleeding control, and finish line visibility during intraoral scanning of anterior teeth. A total of 32 systemically and periodontally healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups, each using a different retraction method:

1. Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.)
2. Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD)
3. Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)
4. Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.)

Digital impressions were obtained before and after retraction using a Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner. The gingival displacement was measured digitally, and scan accuracy was analyzed via RMS error. Bleeding index, finish line visibility, and patient discomfort (VAS) were also recorded.

Enrollment: 50 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 25 to 40 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

1. Age 25-40 years
2. Maxillary premolars with normal anatomical size, contour, and position
3. Systemically healthy individuals
4. Healthy gingiva and periodontium around abutments (GI = 0)
5. Good oral hygiene (PI = 0)
6. Pocket depth ≤ 3 mm
7. Thick gingival biotype

Exclusion criteria

1. Smokers
2. Systemic conditions affecting periodontal status
3. Attachment loss, bleeding on probing, or plaque accumulation

Trial design

Primary purpose: Other

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

50 participants in 4 patient groups

Group A: Cordless paste with astringent (EXP)

Experimental group

Description:

gingival retraction model 1 Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD)

Treatment:

Procedure: Group A: Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD)

Group B: Cordless paste without astringent (MF):

Experimental group

Description:

gingival retraction model 2 Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)

Treatment:

Procedure: Group B: Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)

Group C:Laser troughing (LT):

Experimental group

Description:

gingival retraction model 3 Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.)

Treatment:

Procedure: Group C: Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.)

Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group):

Other group

Description:

control-Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.)

Treatment:

Procedure: Group D: Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.)