Comparing the effectiveness of three different retraction methods on patient's comfort

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate patient's comfort, displacement quality, bleeding, gingival recession and sensitivity of 3 different gingival displacement methods using Visual Anologue Scale (VAS). A total of 144 subjects with healty gingiva who needed fixed partial dentures were included in the study and divided into 3 groups randomly. After subgingival preparation with a chamfer finish line, group 1 received conventional retraction cord (Ultrapak®)only, group 2 received cord with AlCl3 (Racestyptine, SEPTODONT®) and group 3 received retraction paste (3M™ ESPE™ Astringent Retraction Paste®) prior to final impression. Immediatelly after provisinalisation, 7 questions were assessed at baseline and 7 questions were assessed at 1, 7, 28 days. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whittney U, Ki Square test and the Bonferroni correction test (α=0,05). The displacement quality, working time, sensitivity, bleeding after application and patient's comfort were statistically significant among the groups (p<0,001). Retraction paste showed better results for working time and patient comfort (p<0,001). Sensitivity was reduced for all groups after 7 and 28 days. Cord and AlCl3 group showed better results for displacement quality (p=0,005). The highest score for bleeding after application was in convantional cord group (p<0,001). Group 2 and 3 were found to be comparable in terms of bleeding. Retraction paste group showed beter results in terms of gingival reccesion (p<0,001). Cordless technique (retraction paste) was clinically useful to save time and enhance patient comfort and it caused less bleeding, sensitivity, recession and postoperative pain.