J Interdiscip Dentistry
Home | About JID | Editors | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions |
Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 218  | Login  | Contact us | Advertise | Subscribe  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-7

Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of R and D, Everest Biotech, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Aarushi Mahajan
Acer India (Pvt) Ltd., Embassy Heights 6th Floor, No. 13, Magrath Road, Bengaluru - 560 025, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jid.jid_63_18

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two participants were selected and a total of 60 teeth were included which were divided randomly in the group of four. Experimental gingival retraction cords were colored yellow and black (braided, chitosan) and compared with aluminum chloride retraction cord and control nonimpregnated cord. Size for yellow chitosan cord and aluminum chloride was 00, and for black chitosan cord and control was 000. A total of four retraction cords were available for evaluation. Cords were inserted in gingival crevice with cord packer and left for 10 min. Results: There was no significant difference between the two experimental cords, but a significant difference with aluminum chloride cord showing better results with only two of the parameters, that is, the ease of packing the cord and fraying of cords. With nonimpregnated cord, there was a significant difference in hemostasis, sulcus widening, dry sulcus, and amount of bleeding at removal where all the other three cords were better than nonimpregnated cord. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference with respect to both the chitosan gingival retraction cords in all the criteria and with aluminum chloride cord except for fraying of cord. Both the experimental cords were superior to that of nonimpregnated cord with respect to all the criteria except for ease of packing the cord.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded539    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal