Digital technologies are gradually gaining ground in dentistry. In particular, taking impressions with intraoral scanners is becoming routine; however, even this must often be preceded by the use of retraction cords. This article presents an innovative technique to record digital impressions of natural tooth abutments using interim restorations relined with impression material instead of retraction cords. In the laboratory, using computer-aided design, the technician can segment the internal surface of the interim restoration and use it to replace the abutment of the intraoral scan, thus obtaining an accurate coping that yields more detailed information about the supragingival and intrasulcular surface of the preparation.

An accurate impression is an essential procedure for fabricating indirect fixed restorations. To achieve a precise final impression, the management of gingival tissue is without doubt a crucial.
To evaluate the use of different gingival displacement techniques among dental clinicians and to assess their associated knowledge and technique preferences.
A self-designed survey was created electronically and sent to a list of dentists. The survey was composed of multiple sections. Participants who stated that they do not use GD methods were asked to answer the survey questions based on their knowledge. Descriptive statistics were generated, andChi-square test was used to examine the association between the different variables.
A total of 188 dentists participated in this study. The majority 144 (76.6%) use GD in their practice. When asked which technique yields a more accurate impression with lower incidence of repeating the impression, 93 (64.6%) reported retraction cord technique with a hemostatic agent results in a higher impression accuracy, while only 14 (9.7%) declared the retraction paste technique as being more accurate.
The cordless GD technique is believed to be easier, faster, and less traumatic to the gingival tissues, nevertheless, the outcome of dental impressions is believed to be more predictable with the use of conventional retraction cords and hemostatic medicaments.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous gingival retraction systems available on the market. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of four gingival retraction systems, namely, impregnated retraction cord, gingival retraction capsule, retraction paste, and polyvinyl acetate strips.
METHODS: A total of 20 people were chosen for the study, and 100 specimens were collected. The specimens were classified into five groups based on the materials used for gingival displacement. On the first day, a baseline impression without gingival displacement was made. Afterward, impressions were made with any of the following four gingival retraction systems: impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord® Plus; Sure Dent Corporation, Jungwon-gu, South Korea), retraction capsule (3M ESPE astringent retraction paste capsule; 3M Corporation, St. Paul, MN), retraction paste (Traxodent® Hemodent® Paste Retraction System; Premier Dental Co., Plymouth Meeting, PA) and polyvinylacetate strips (Merocel; Merocel Co., Mystic, CT), with a 14-day interval between each system. The amount of gingival displacement was measured using an optical microscope as the distance from the tooth to the gingiva crest in a horizontal plane.
RESULTS:  All experimental groups had higher gingival displacement than the control group (P < 0.01). Among the experimental groups, polyvinyl acetate strips had the highest gingival displacement value (541.65 μm), followed by impregnated retraction cord (505.37 μm), retraction capsule (333.57 μm), and retraction paste (230.63 μm).
CONCLUSIONS:  Within the limits of this in vivo study, significant differences in horizontal gingival displacement were discovered among the four evaluated systems. The horizontal displacement requirements of 200 μm were exceeded by all four systems. The maximum value for gingival displacement was found in polyvinyl acetate strips (Merocel), followed by impregnated retraction cord (SURE-Cord), and retraction capsule (3M ESPE), and the lowest value was found in retraction paste (Traxodent).

UNASSIGNED: Gingival retraction cord is the most commonly used gingival displacement material; however, it causes discomfort and produces damage to the periodontium. Various new gingival retraction materials have been introduced to overcome these problems. This in vivo study was conducted to compare the efficacy of three recent gingival displacement materials in achieving gingival tissue displacement.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 10 subjects was selected and 40 samples were made for the study. Samples were divided into four groups depending on the materials used for gingival displacement. The schedule for gingival displacement and impression making followed Latin block design. On day 1, baseline impression was made without gingival displacement. On day 2, day 22, and day 42 impressions were made after gingival displacement on intact maxillary right central incisor with any one of the three agents. The amount of gingival displacement was then measured as a distance from the tooth to the crest of the gingiva in a horizontal plane using stereomicroscope.
UNASSIGNED: Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA test. The amount of gingival displacement obtained by all the experimental groups was more than the control group (P < 0.01). Among the experimental groups, astringent gingival retraction paste showed the highest value for gingival displacement (0.50 mm) followed by the stay-put retraction cord (0.48 mm), whereas expasyl (0.34 mm) showed the least value.
UNASSIGNED: Within the limitations of this in vivo study, astringent gingival retraction paste showed the highest value for gingival displacement followed by stay-put retraction cord whereas, expasyl showed the least value.

UNASSIGNED: The displacement of the gingiva around the tooth allows proper access during preparation, precise impression taking, and cementation procedures that has a direct bearing on the health of the periodontium. Several methods and agents are used for this purpose.
UNASSIGNED: The primary aim of the study was to clinically evaluate the efficacy of naphazoline as a gingival retraction agent. The secondary aim was to compare it with tetrahydrozoline and aluminum chloride.
UNASSIGNED: Fifteen patients participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial at the Army College of Dental Sciences, Secunderabad, Telangana, India.
UNASSIGNED: Preliminary maxillary impressions were made with irreversible hydrocolloid for all patients to fabricate custom trays. After that, baseline impressions and cast for control group measurements were prepared. Gingival displacement was carried out in the right maxillary central incisor for all, with retraction cord soaked in three agents, either, aluminum chloride, tetrahydrozoline, or naphazoline. These agents were used in all patients with a washout period of 14 days. Elastomeric monophase impressions and die stone casts were recorded for each group. The central incisors were sectioned, and gingival retraction was measured using a measuring stereomicroscope.
UNASSIGNED: The gingival displacement was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni.
UNASSIGNED: Naphazoline had the highest retraction (138.160 μm) followed by tetrahydrozoline (136.039 μm) and aluminum chloride (130.759 μm).
UNASSIGNED: Naphazoline, tetrahydrozoline, and aluminum chloride show a clinically and statistically significant amount of displacement when compared to control. Among the three agents, naphazoline showed maximum displacement and maybe a good alternative with fewer side effects.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pressure generated by different retraction materials using a novel gingival sulcus model.
METHODS: A gingival sulcus model was made using a polymer frame filled with silicon. A pressure sensor and a sulcus-fluid simulation were embedded into the silicon chamber to evaluate the pressure generated by different retraction materials. Six sizes of Ultrapak retraction cords (Ultradent, sizes #000 - 3), 4 retraction pastes (Expazen, Expasyl, Acteon, Access Edge, Traxodent) and 2 retraction gels (Sulcus Blue, Racegel) were analyzed. The mean and median pressure, interquartile range, and standard deviation (SD) of n = 10 repeated measurements were calculated. Statistical analysis was conducted by Kruskal-Wallis test for differences between the main groups of retraction materials, and Mann-Whitney U-test was performed to analyze differences between the single retraction materials.
RESULTS: Pressure (mean ± SD) generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size (48.26 ± 11.29 kPa, size #000 to 149.27 ± 28.75 kPa for #3). There was a significant difference between sizes (p < 0.01), except in #0 versus #1, and #2 versus #3. Retraction pastes generated pressures that ranged from 82.74 ± 29.29 kPa (Traxodent) to 524.35 ± 113.88 kPa (Expasyl). Retraction gels generated pressures from 38.96 ± 14.68 kPa (Racegel) to 95.15 ± 24.18 kPa (Sulcus Blue). Pressure generated by Expasyl was significantly higher than pressure generated by all other tested materials (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure generated by retraction pastes and gels depends on the consistency of the retraction material, while pressure generated by retraction cords increased with increasing size of cords. Expasyl was found to generate the highest pressure compared to all other retraction materials.

Subcutaneous facial emphysema (SFE) is a potentially serious complication of dental treatment typically associated with surgical removal of teeth using air-driven handpieces. A case of SFE is presented occurring after routine dental restoration, along with a framework to aid prevention of this complication and guide management where it occurs.

Subcutaneous facial emphysema (SFE) following routine dental operative procedure is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication. The present case details a Class V restoration where air was introduced into the fascial tissue planes via the gingival sulcus from the use of an air-driven dental handpiece. Although the SFE is usually self-limiting within 3-10 days, such instances should be regarded as a medical emergency as in severe cases, the air may spread to the neck, mediastinum and thorax to result in cervicofacial emphysema with potential pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: A new material is proposed in dentistry in the form of strips for producing gingival retraction. The clinical efficacy of the material remains untested.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether the polyvinyl acetate strips are able to effectively displace the gingival tissues in comparison with the conventional retraction cord.
METHODS: Complete metal ceramic preparation with supra-gingival margin was performed in fourteen maxillary incisors and gingival retraction was done using Merocel strips and conventional retraction cords alternatively in 2 weeks time interval. The amount of displacement was compared using a digital vernier caliper of 0.01mm accuracy. RESULTS were analyzed statistically using Paired students t-test.
RESULTS: The statistical analysis of the data revealed that both the conventional retraction cord and the Merocel strip produce significant retraction. Among both the materials, Merocel proved to be significantly more effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Merocel strip produces more gingival displacement than the conventional retraction cord.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the quality of crown and bridge work among dentists in Khartoum state by mean of a questionnaire.
METHODS: Questionnaire was distributed to all dentists (about 230) who work in private clinics and primary health centers in Khartoum state. A total of 152 usable questionnaires were collected, giving a response rate 66.09%.
RESULTS: High-speed hand pieces were the instrument of choice (80.54%) and according to number of spray ports single port was found to be the most common type (80.43%). Alginate was the material of choice as a final impression material (68.24%) followed by condensation-cured silicone (24.32%). Impression trays used by dentists were metal tray 23.53%, rigid plastic tray 12.5% and both 63.97%. Results in concern of the use of the retracting cord indicated that 53.69% never use it. Results also indicated that 36.05% never used temporary crown and bridge. Traditional glass ionomer cements and zinc phosphate cements (56%) were equally selected as best choice for final luting cement of crown and bridge work. Both verbal and written prescriptions (81.73%) were the most common used way of communication between dentists and dental technicians.
CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the majority of the surveyed dentists mainly used alginate as a final impression material for crown and bridge work. It was also observed, the absence of application of retraction cord and temporary restoration in their practice for crown and bridge work.