Evaluation Of Peri Implant Tissue Displacement Around Single Piece Implants Using 3 Different Displacement Methods - A Clinical Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate vertical displacement, lateral displacement and pressure during peri implant tissue displacement using 3 different displacement methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten single piece implants were placed and provisional crowns were given. After a period of six months, primary impressions were made and casts were poured. Over these casts, custom trays were fabricated (n=40). A Pre displacement impression was followed by Mechanical (G cuff), Chemical (astringent retraction paste) and Chemico-mechanical (knitted retraction cord) displacement in a gap of seven days. Pressure measurements were made using customized pressure sensitive periodontal probe. Impressions were made and the forty die stone casts obtained were scanned and analysed to measure the vertical and lateral displacement. The statistical analysis was done using Kruskal Wallis test followed by Post Hoc analysis - Scheffe’s method.
RESULTS: The highest vertical displacement was seen in Chemico-mechanical (knitted retraction cord) followed by Mechanical (G-cuff) and Chemical (astringent retraction paste). The highest lateral displacement was seen in Mechanical (G cuff) followed by Chemico-mechanical (knitted retraction cord) and Chemical (astringent retraction paste). Least pressure was seen with chemical (astringent retraction paste) method followed by mechanical (G cuff) and chemico – mechanical (knitted retraction cord) method.
CONCLUSION: Lateral peri implant displacement is more predictable than vertical peri implant displacement. All the methods tested showed pressure within acceptable limits during displacement procedures. Chemical (Astringent retraction paste) method produced desirable displacement with least pressure to the surrounding tissues.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
S.G. Kim.Clinical complications of dental implants in Implant Dentistry—A Rapidly Evolving Practice. I. Turkyilmaz. 2011; 2 (20): 467–490.
Ferencz JL. Maintaining and enhancing gingival architecture infixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 650‑7.
The glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117(5S): 1‑105.
Goldberg PV, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG: Periodontal considerations in restorative and implant therapy. Periodontol. 2001; 25: 100-109.
Benson, T.J. Bomberg, R.A.Hatch, W.Hoffman. Tissue displacement methods in fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55(2): 175-181.
Bennani V, Schwass D, Chandler N. Gingival Retraction Techniques for Implants Versus Teeth-Current Status. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(10):1354-1363.
Zeena Raja, Chandrasekharan Nair. A clinical study on gingival retraction. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2003; 3(3): 21-27.
Gupta S, Dhawan P, Madhukar P, Tandan P, Sachdeva A. Clinical evaluation of the effect of two gingival retraction systems, gingival cuff and gingival retraction paste, on peri-implant soft tissue. J Inter Dis Dent. 2017; 7: 53-9.
Ashish Jain, Nallaswamy D. Comparison of gingival retraction produced by retraction cord and expasyl retraction systems - An in vivo study. J Drug Inv. 2018; 10: 35-41.
Ahmed SN, Donovan TE. Gingival displacement: Survey results of dentists’ practice procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(1):81-5.