Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (3): 507-510.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2012.03.028

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of damage degree of gingival retraction materials with different dosage forms on the gingival tissues

Yang Chun-jiang1, Liu Xuan2, Wu Wen-hui3   

  1. 1Department of Orthodontics, Stomatology Hospital of Tangshan, Tangshan  063000, Hebei Province, China; 2Department of Stomatology, the No. 2 Hospital of Baoding, Baoding  071051, Hebei Province, China; 3School of Stomatology, Hebei United University, Tangshan  063000, Hebei Province, China
  • Received:2011-10-02 Revised:2011-12-01 Online:2012-01-15 Published:2012-01-15
  • Contact: Wu Wen-hui, Master, Professor, School of Stomatology, Hebei United University, Tangshan 063000, Hebei Province, China wuwenhui120@ 163.com
  • About author:2011-10-02Yang Chun-jiang, Associate chief physician, Department of Orthodontics, Stomatology Hospital of Tangshan, Tangshan 063000, Hebei Province, China 13582958008@ 163.com

PDF

281

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Gingival retraction contributes to the accurate records of the position and morphology of the tooth prepare edge, thereby enhance the suitability of the gingival margin in the fixed restoration, to ensure the success and long-term stability of the restoration.
OBJECTIVE: To observe the damage degree of gingival tissues in rats treated with gingival retraction cord and gingival retraction paste gum.
METHODS: A total of 65 Wistar rats were involved in this experiment. Experimental rats were treated with gingival retraction cord and gingival retraction paste gum; control rats did not receive gingival retraction treatment. Rat gingival tissues were collected at 30 minutes, 1, 2, 4, 7 and 12 days after gingival retraction for observation.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Pathology observation showed that both gingival retraction cord and gingival retraction paste gum can lead to gingival tissue damage and inflammatory reaction. The inflammatory reaction in the gingival retraction cord group was severe than that in the gingival retraction paste gum group; however, the histology manifestation of gingival tissues in both groups returned to normal on 12 day after gingival retraction. These findings indicate that the two dosage forms of gingival retraction materials are safe and reliable; but the damage of the gingival tissues caused by gingival retraction paste gum is lighter than that caused by gingival retraction cord, therefore the gingival retraction paste gum has better biological effects.

CLC Number: