|
|
 |
|
| LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2012 | Volume
: 2
| Issue : 1 | Page : 54-55 |
|
Gingival displacement in prosthodontics: A critical review of existing methods
Vidya K Shenoy
Department of Prosthodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal University, Karnataka, India
| Date of Web Publication | 22-Mar-2012 |
Correspondence Address:
Vidya K Shenoy
Department of Prosthodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal University, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.94197
How to cite this article:
Shenoy VK. Gingival displacement in prosthodontics: A critical review of existing methods. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2012;2:54-5 |
Dear Editor,
In their JID article (July-December), Dr. Krishna Prasad and colleagues critically reviewed various methods of gingival displacement in prosthodontics [1] . This article was well-written, well-covered and recent contribution from the literature is well-reflected in it.
This will help practicing dentists to make better-informed decisions regarding the current options and materials available for gingival displacement. In tissue hierarchy, teeth act as protagonists followed by soft tissue and bone topography. Bone gives tone but it is the tissue which is always the issue.
Certainly, tissue management is one of the most critical factors in ensuring a high-quality impression and in turn, successful restoration. As no one method satisfies all clinical requirements, clinicians should consider the merits and demerits of each method, planned restoration for the individual patient, and strive for minimally-invasive methods, while at the same time preserving periodontal health.
As Devan rightly said, "Perpetual preservation of what is remaining is more important than meticulous reconstruction of what is lost". [2] To add on, the four forces involved in the deformation of gingival tissues during retraction and impression procedures have been explained well in the article "Gingival retraction techniques for implant Vs teeth" by Vincent Bennani [3] and colleagues in the Journal of American Dental Association 2008 which will give additional information to the readers.
Finally, in most cases, gingival retraction cord is the most effective method of gingival displacement and the recent innovations in the form of cordless gingival displacement techniques have made minimally-invasive soft-tissue management an achievable reality.
 References | |  |
| 1. | Prasad KD, Hegde C, Agrawal G, Shetty M. Gingival displacement in prosthodontics: A critical review of existing methods. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2011;1:80-6. 
 |
| 2. | DeVan MM. The nature of the partial denture foundation: suggestions for its preservation. J Prosthet Dent 1952;2:210-8.
|
| 3. | Bennani V, Schwass D, Chandler N. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth- Current status. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1354-63.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
|
