Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status.
BACKGROUND
The authors reviewed and compared gingival retraction techniques used for implants and teeth.


METHODS
The authors searched the literature using article databases Ovid MEDLINE up to May 2008, PubMED and Google Scholar (advanced search) and the following search terms: gingival retraction, implant abutment, impressions, cement-retained implant restoration, impression coping, peri-implant tissue, emergence profile and tissue conditioning.


RESULTS
The authors found insufficient evidence relating to gingival displacement techniques for impression making for implant dentistry. Gingival retraction techniques and materials are designed primarily for peridental applications; the authors considered their relevance to peri-implant applications and determined that further research and new product development are needed.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of injectable materials that form an expanding matrix to provide gingival retraction offers effective exposure of preparation finish lines and is suitable for conventional impression-making methods or computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing digital impressions in many situations. There are, however, limitations with any retraction technique, including injectable matrices, for situations in which clinicians place deep implants.
Bennani
Vincent
V
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Schwass
Donald
D
Chandler
Nicholas
N
D015921:Dental Implants; D003760:Dental Impression Materials; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000295:instrumentation; D005881:Gingiva / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D006801:Humans; D014070:Tooth / Q000033:anatomy & histology*
D015921:Dental Implants; D003760:Dental Impression Materials