PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to observe, compare and evaluate the effect of two α-adrenomimetic decongestants which are clinically approved nasal and eye drops - 0,05% xylometazoline hydrochloride and 0,05% tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride, when applied as chemical agents for chemo-mechanical retraction of free gingiva prior to impression making in fixed prosthodontics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study includes 90 prepared abutment teeth indicated for fixed prosthodontic treatment. α-adrenomimetic decongestants in the composition of 2 approved for clinical usage nasal and eye drops commercial products were applied as chemical agents for gingival retraction - Xylometazoline ( 0,05% xylometazoline hydrochloride) and Visine ( 0,05% tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride). Ultrapak retraction cord of four different sizes impregnated with the investigated chemical agents was used. Two steps two-layered impressions with polyvinyl and polydimethylsiloxane were taken from the prosthetic fields. Impression sections were fabricated and studied under microscope.
RESULTS: The low viscosity polyvinyl and polydimethyl siloxane layers tend to penetrate deeper in the gingival groove after chemo-mechanical retraction with Xylometazoline compared to the second group impressions fabricated after Visine retraction.
CONCLUSION: The conducted testing demonstrated that effective retraction of the free marginal gingiva is possible to obtain with α-adernomimetic decongestants. 0,05% xylometazoline hydrochloride (Xylometazoline) provides better results in comparison to the eye decongestant drops 0,05% tеtrahydrozoline hydrochloride (Visine).
Kisov HK. Otpechatachni materiali i otpechatachni metodi v nepodvizhnoto zaboprotezirane. Sofia: Index; 1998. Bulgarian.
Abadzhiev M. Comparative research of the subgingival impression quality by fixed prosthesis using one and double cord retraction technique. Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers). 2009;2:52-54.
A Malbaker. Gingival Retraction - Techinques and Materials: A Review. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal. 2010;30(2).
Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:385-389.
Al-Ani A, Bennani V, Chandler NP, Lyons KM, Tomson WM. New Zealand dentists` use of gingival retraction techniques for fixed prosthodontics and implants. New Zeal Dent J. 2010;106:92-96.
Bowles WH, Tardy SJ, Vahadi A. Evaluation of the new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res. 1991;70(11):1447-49.
Csillag M, Nyiri G, Vag J, Fazekas A. Dose-related effects of epinephrine on human gingival blood flow and crevicular fluid production used as a soaking solution for chemoch-mechanical tissue retraction. J Prosthed Dent. 2007;97(1):6-11.
Donovan TE, Chee WW. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48(2):433-44.
Felpel LP. A review of pharmacotherapeutics for prosthetic dentistry: Part I. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1997;3:285-292.
Hansen PA, Tira DE, Barlow J. Current methods of finish-line exposure by practicing prosthodontists. J. Prosthodont. 1999;8(3):163-70.
HE Strassler, L Boksman. Tissue Management, Gingival Retraction and Hemostasis. Available from: http://www.oralhealthgroup.com/news/tissue-management-gingival-retraction-and-hemostasis/1000519731/?&er=NA
Kopač I, Batista U, Cvetko E, Marion L. Viability of fibroblasts in cell culture after treatment with different chemical retraction agents. J. Oral Rehab. 2002:29:98-104.
Liu C, Huang F, Yang L, Chou L, Chou M, Chanh Y. Cytotoxic effects of gingival retraction cords on human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. J. Oral Rehab. 2004;31:368-372.
Nowakowska D. The impact of retraction astringents on gingival margin tissues from literature review of in vivo studies. Protet. Stomatol. 2009;59:119-124.
Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J, Choromanska A. Dynamic oxidoreductive potential of astringent retraction agents. Folia Biol. (Praha). 2010;56:263-268.
Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J, Choromanska A, Raszewski Z. Cytotoxic potential of Vasoconstrictor Experimental Gingival Retraction Agents - in Vitro Study on Primary Human Gingival Fibroblasts. Folia Biologica (Praha). 2012;58:37-43.
Pelzner RB, Kempler D, Stark MM, Lum LB, Nicholson RJ, Soelberg KB. Human blood pressure and pulse rate response to racemic epinephrine retraction cord. J Prosthed Dent 1978;39(3):287-92.
Strassler HE, Tissue Management, Gingival Retraction and Hemostasis. Benco Dental, Education Department, Available from: http://d3e9u3gw8odyw8.cloudfront.net/ie2_ce_tissue_management.pdf