Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords.
BACKGROUND
A wide spectrum of different gingival retraction cords is used, while the relative clinical efficacy of these cords remains undocumented.


OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine whether clinicians were able to identify differences in clinical performance among 3 types of gingival retraction cords.


METHODS
Dental students and faculty members ranked pairs or series of cords according to 6 criteria for clinical performance, with a blind experimental study design. Cords differed in consistency (knitted or twined) and impregnation (8% dl-epinephrine HCl, 0.5 mg/in or 25% aluminum sulfate, 0.5 mg/in).


RESULTS
Knitted cords were ranked better than twined cords (P =.03). Cords containing epinephrine performed no better clinically than aluminum sulfate cords (P >.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians were unable to detect any clinical advantages of using epinephrine impregnated gingival retraction cords compared with aluminum sulfate cords.
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
A
A
Jokstad
D000534:Alum Compounds / Q000008:administration & dosage; D001252:Astringents / Q000008:administration & dosage; D003442:Crowns; D000044:Dental Abutments; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D004837:Epinephrine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D004867:Equipment Design; D005179:Faculty, Dental; D005881:Gingiva; D005884:Gingival Hemorrhage / Q000209:etiology; D006487:Hemostasis; D006801:Humans; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013335:Students, Dental; D013499:Surface Properties; D014662:Vasoconstrictor Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage
D000534:Alum Compounds; D001252:Astringents; D014662:Vasoconstrictor Agents; C041524:aluminum sulfate; D004837:Epinephrine