Effectiveness of cordless techniques in gingival  displacement. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fredy Cruzado-Oliva; Heber Arbildo-Vega; Edward Infantes-Ruíz; Jhonatan Rodríguez-Angulo; Luis Alarco-La Rosa; Saurav Panda

doi:10.17126/joralres.2023.023

Fredy Cruzado-Oliva Faculty of Stomatology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo. Trujillo – Peru. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-0077
Heber Arbildo-Vega Faculty of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidad San Martín de Porres. Chiclayo - Peru; Faculty of Human Medicine, School of Human Medicine, Universidad San Martín de Porres. Chiclayo - Peru; Faculty of Human Medicine, School of Stomatology, Universidad Alas Peruanas. Lima – Peru. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3689-7502
Edward Infantes-Ruíz Faculty of Health Science, School of Stomatology, Universidad César Vallejo. Piura - Peru. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0613-1215
Jhonatan Rodríguez-Angulo Faculty of Stomatology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo. Trujillo – Peru. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4522-2876
Luis Alarco-La Rosa Faculty of Stomatology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo. Trujillo – Peru. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9296-8312
Saurav Panda Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Univeristy, Bhubaneswar – India. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-748X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2023.023

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the conventional technique and cordless technique in gingival displacement.
Materials and Methods: A bibliographic search was carried out until August 2023, in the biomedical databases: Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus and Google Scholar. Included studies reporting the gingival displacement of vital teeth using the cordless and con-ventional techniques comprised clinical trials, articles in English and without time limits. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendation of the results.
Results: The preliminary search yielded a total of 489 articles, discarding those that did not meet the selection criteria, leaving only 15 articles. A total of fourteen articles entered a meta-analysis. It was found that the conventional technique caused better gingival (width) displacement than the cordless techniques, however, it caused more bleeding. Furthermore, among the wireless techniques, the one using polyvinylsiloxane obtained better results.
Conclusions: The literature reviewed suggests that the conventional technique resulted in a better gingival displacement (width) than the cordless techniques, however, it causes a greater periodontal injury.
Keywords: Periodontal Diseases; Oral Surgical Procedures; Gingiva; Gingival Recession; Systematic Review; Meta-analysis

References

1. Martins FV, Mattos CT, Cordeiro WJB, Fonseca EM. Evaluation of zirconia surface roughness after aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion and the erbium-YAG, neodymium-doped YAG, or CO2 lasers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121(6): 895-903.e2.
2. Prasanna GSR, Reddy K, Kumar RKN, Shivaprakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013; 14(2): 217-21.
3. Thimmappa M, Bhatia M, Somani P, Kumar DRV. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018; 18(2): 122-30.
4. Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W. Tissue displacement methods in fixed pros-thodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55(2): 175-81.
5. Martins FV, Santana RB, Fonseca EM. Efficacy of conventional cord versus cordless techniques for gingival displacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125(1): 46-55.
6. Huang C, Somar M, Li K, Mohadeb JVN. Efficiency of Cordless Versus Cord Techniques of Gingival Retraction: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2017; 26(3): 177-85.
7. Kamath R, D.l S, Baid GC. Advances in Gingival Retraction. Int J Clin Dent Sci. 2011; 2(1): 64-7.
8. Tabassum S, Adnan S, Khan FR. Gingival Retraction Methods: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2017; 26(8): 637-43.
9. Einarsdottir ER, Lang NP, Aspelund T, Pjetursson BE. A multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords, an aluminum chloride paste, and a combination of paste and cords for tissue displacement. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(1): 82-8.
10. Goutham GB, Jayanti I, Jalaluddin M, Avijeeta A, Ramanna PK, Joy J. Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018; 19(5): 502-6.
11. Gupta A, Prithviraj DR, Gupta D, Shruti DP. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 13(1): 36-42.
12. Jain A, Nallaswamy D. Comparison of gingival retraction produced by retraction cord and expasyl retraction systems - An in vivo study. Drug Invent Today. 2018; 10(1): 35-41.
13. Kazemi M, Kazemi M, Loran V. Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Gingival Retraction Procedures on Gingival Recession and Tissue Displacement: Clinical Study. Res J Biol Sci. 2009; 4(3): 335-9.
14. Tiwari AK, Pandey KK, Verma AK, Ali M, Katiyar P, Gaur A, et al. A Comparative In vivo Study for Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement. J Adv Med Med Res. 2018; 26(10): 1-8.
15. Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J, Wicckiewicz W. Chemical Retraction Agents - in vivo and in vitro Studies into their Physico-Chemical Properties, Biocompatibility with Gingival Margin Tissues and Compatibility with Elastomer Impression Materials. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2017; 17(5): 435-44.
16. Wang Y, Fan F, Li X, Zhou Q, He B, Huang X, et al. Influence of gingival retraction paste versus cord on periodontal health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int Berl Ger 1985. 2019; 50(3): 234-44.
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.
18. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898.
19. Mehta S, Virani H, Memon S, Nirmal N. A Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Foam Retraction System, Vinyl Polysiloxane Paste Retraction System, and Copper Wire Reinforced Retraction Cord in Endodontically Treated Teeth: An in vivo Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019; 10(3): 428-32.
20. Beleidy M, Elddien A. Clinical comparative eva-luation of different retraction systems in gingival displacement and their influence on periodontal health: A randomized clinical trial. Egypt Dent J. 2020; 66(3): 1667-78.
21. Bennani V, Aarts JM, Brunton P. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste. J Esthet Restor Dent Off Publ Am Acad Esthet Dent Al. 2020; 32(4): 410-5.
22. Chandra S, Singh A, Gupta KK, Chandra C, Arora V. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(2): 177-82.
23. Gajbhiye V, Banerjee R, Jaiswal P, Chandak A, Radke U. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019; 19(2): 173-9.
24. Indriyani A, Masulili C, Odang RWL. Effect of Gingival Retraction Method to Lateral Gingival Displacement Width. Pesqui Bras Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integrada. 2020;19: e5118.
25. Kavita K, Sinha RI, Singh R, Singh R, Reddy KRP, Kulkarni G. Assessment of Aluminum Chloride Retraction Cords, Expasyl, and Tetrahydrozoline-Soaked Retraction Systems in Gingival Retraction. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2020; 12(Suppl 1): S440-3.
26. Kesari ZI, Karani JT, Mistry SS, Pai AR. A comparative evaluation of amount of gingival displacement produced by four different gingival displacement agents – An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019; 19(4): 313-23.
27. Qureshi SM, Anasane NS, Kakade D. Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement Using Three Recent Gingival Retraction Systems – In vivo Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2020; 11(1): 28-33.
28. Sachdev PA, Arora A, N S, a. A Comparative Evaluation of Different Gingival Retraction Methods-an In Vivo Study. Oral Health Case Rep. 2018; 4(1): 1-7.