Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords

A Jokstad
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70266-0
Abstract:Statement of problem: A wide spectrum of different gingival retraction cords is used, while the relative clinical efficacy of these cords remains undocumented. Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether clinicians were able to identify differences in clinical performance among 3 types of gingival retraction cords. Methods and material: Dental students and faculty members ranked pairs or series of cords according to 6 criteria for clinical performance, with a blind experimental study design. Cords differed in consistency (knitted or twined) and impregnation (8% dl-epinephrine HCl, 0.5 mg/in or 25% aluminum sulfate, 0.5 mg/in). Results: Knitted cords were ranked better than twined cords (P =.03). Cords containing epinephrine performed no better clinically than aluminum sulfate cords (P >.05). Conclusion: Clinicians were unable to detect any clinical advantages of using epinephrine impregnated gingival retraction cords compared with aluminum sulfate cords.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?