Comparing the Effectiveness of Three Different Retraction Methods on Patient’s Comfort

Objectives: The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the patient’s comfort, bleeding and sensitivity to and the displacement outcome of 3 different gingival displacement methods using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
Methods: A total of 110 patients with healthy gingiva who needed fixed partial dentures were included in the study and divided into 3 groups randomly. After 0.5 mm subgingival preparation with a chamfer finish line, group 1 received conventional retraction cord (Ultrapak®) only, group 2 received cord embedded in AlCl₃ (Racestyptine, SEPTODONT®) and group 3 received retraction paste (3M ESPE Astringent Retraction Paste®) prior to final impression. Immediately after provisional restoration, 7 questions were assessed at baseline and 7 questions were assessed at 1, 7, 28 days. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whittney U, Ki Square tests and the Bonferroni correction test (α = 0.05).
Results: The displacement amount, working time, bleeding after application and patient’s comfort were statistically significant among the groups (p < 0.001). Group 3 showed better results for working time and patient comfort (p<0.001). Sensitivity was reduced for all groups after 7 and 28 days. Group 2 showed better results for displacement quality (p = 0.003). The highest score for bleeding after application was in Group 1. Group 2 and 3 were found to be comparable in terms of bleeding.
Conclusions: Cordless technique (retraction paste) was clinically useful to save time and enhance patient comfort and it caused less bleeding and sensitivity.