THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HDPE-TYPE GINGIVAL RETRACTORS IN DENTAL CERVICAL RESTORATIONS
Keywords:
HDPE gingival retractor, traditional gingival cords, type 5 dental cavityAbstract
This quasi-experimental research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of High-density polyethylene (HDPE) Gingival Retractors in restoring type 5 cavities compared to traditional gingival cords. The study focused on assessing material attachment, duration of application, and surface smoothness in restoring cavities located between tooth 21 and tooth 36, using a dentoform model where plastic teeth were ground to create type 5 cavities (the classification for cavity preparation was V) In the study, the experimental group utilized HDPE Gingival Retractors for 28 teeth, while the control group employed gingival cords for the same number of teeth. Data analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U-Test.
The results revealed that the experimental group using the HDPE Gingival Retractor demonstrated significantly better performance in terms of duration and smoothness when restoring cavities, compared to the control group using gingival displacement. Furthermore, regarding the attachment of restorations, the experimental group showed significantly better results for cavity 36; however, no significant difference was observed in attachment for cavity 21. These findings suggest that HDPE Gingival Retractors are a more effective option for restoring type 5 cavities. This material may enhance the efficiency of various dental procedures by reducing treatment time, improving durability, and offering greater convenience in application.
Downloads
References
Quinchiguano Caraguay MA, Amoroso Calle EE, Idrovo Tinta TS, Gil Pozo JA. Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL): a review of the literature. Research, Society and Development 2023; 12(5): 1-10.
Goodacre CJ, Eugene Roberts W, Munoz C A. Noncarious cervical lesions: Morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. Journal of Prosthodontics 2023; 32(2): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOPR.13585.
Limpattamapanee K. Case report: Endodontic treatment in cracked tooth with endo-perio lesion: 2.5 yrs. Follow-up. Mahasarakham Hospital Journal 2023; 20(2): 49-62. [in Thai].
Kunawisarut S. The efficiency of the AP Dental Program for dental records at Sirindhorn College of Public Health, Suphanburi Province. Thai Dental Nurse Journal 2021; 32(1): 131-42. [in Thai].
Jittawannarat N. Gingival black triangles closure with resin composite restorations: a case report. Medical Journal of Srisaket Surin Buriram Hospitals 2023; 38(1): 1-10. [in Thai].
Sanguanwongthong P, Taweewattanapaisan P, Sakdee J, Piyachon C. Comparative study on the shaping ability of three reciprocating nickel-titanium single file systems in curved root canals. Khon Kaen Dent J 2020; 23(3): 1-10. [in Thai].
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. (7th ed.). NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall; 2014.
Bennani V. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: Current status. JADA 2008; 139(10): 1354-1363.
Jain R, Kumar S, Gupta P. Comparative evaluation of HDPE gingival retractors with traditional techniques in cervical restorations. Journal of Dental Research 2020; 45(3): 123-130.
Lee MH, Kim SJ, Park JY. Biocompatibility and clinical outcomes of HDPE-based gingival retractors: A systematic review. International Journal of Dentistry 2021; 56(2): 78-85.
Patel DR, Mehta A, Shah V. Influence of gingival retractors on composite bonding in cervical lesions. Clinical Oral Investigations 2022; 26(4): 245-252.
Teo JYQ, Watts DC, Silikas N, Lim JYC, Rosa V. The global burden of plastics in oral health: prospects for circularity, sustainable materials development and practice. RSC Sustainability 2024; 2(4): 881–902.
Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO, Reis A. Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Operative Dentistry 2015; 40(6): 581-593.
Palanuwech M. Gingival displacement. SWU Dent J 2013; 6: 90-102. [in Thai].
Azzi R, Tsao TF, Carranza FAJr, Kenney EB. Comparative study of gingival retraction methods. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1983; 50(4): 561-565.
Gupta R, Aggarwal R, Siddiqui Z. Comparison of various methods of gingival retraction on gingival and Periodontal health and marginal fit. International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry 2016; 2(4): 243-247.
Rayyan MM, Hussien ANM, Sayed NM, Abdallah R, Osman E, El Saad NA, Ramadan S. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: A clinical study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2019; 121(2): 265-270.
Singh PN, Venugopal S, Shenoy A. Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement and Patient Outcomes with Different Gingival Retraction Techniques: A Cross-over Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research 2024; 18(8): 64.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles in this journal are copyrighted by the x may be read and used for academic purposes, such as teaching, research, or citation, with proper credit given to the author and the journal.use or modification of the articles is prohibited without permission.
statements expressed in the articles are solely the opinions of the authors.
authors are fully responsible for the content and accuracy of their articles.
other reuse or republication requires permission from the journal."
