Gingival displacement before impression making: A prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial

Marie Desclos-Theveniau; Hugo Abgrall; Vincent Bar; Françoise Basle; Dominique Basle; Marie-Joseph Dautel; Jacques Rubin; Franck Delanoue; Etienne Lefrançois; Anne Dautel; Anne-Laure Sérandour; Gwenvael Le Guicher; Hugues Colombel

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.027

Gingival displacement before impression making: A prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial

J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Oct 31:S0022-3913(23)00644-3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.027. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Nutrition Metabolisms and Cancer, U1317 INSERM, INRAE, UNIVREN, Rennes University Hospital Center (CHU Rennes), CIC 1414, Rennes, France. Electronic address: marie.theveniau@univ-rennes.fr.
² Private practice, Rennes, France.
³ Private practice, Tinteniac, France.
⁴ Private practice, Cesson-Sévigné, France.
⁵ Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Rennes University Hospital Center (CHU Rennes), Rennes, France.
⁶ Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Rennes University Hospital Center (CHU Rennes), Rennes, France.
⁷ Project Manager, SLB Pharma, Rennes, France.

PMID: 37919130
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.027

Abstract

Statement of problem: Gingival displacement is used in prosthodontics to obtain an accurate impression. However, randomized clinical trials to analyze the performance of different gingival displacement products are lacking.

Purpose: The purpose of this prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 3 gingival displacement techniques: Racegel cordless, Racegel with a cord, and Racestyptine with a cord.

Material and methods: A prospective, multicenter randomized, open label, 3-arm parallel group study was carried out in private dental practices. Patients with prepared teeth with healthy gingiva were recruited to make impressions before and after gingival displacement, which were digitized. Lateral and vertical gingival displacements were measured with computer-aided 3-dimensional analysis performed by a single operator who was blinded to the technique and the patient. For mean lateral gingival displacement, each gingival displacement method was compared with a required clinical value of 200 µm with the Student t test. The comparison of means among the 3 groups was performed using an ANOVA. Periodontal indices were recorded immediately and 7 to 14 days after gingival displacement. The percentages were compared with the chi-squared test or the Fisher exact test (α=.05 for all tests).

Results: Eighty-eight participants were enrolled. The mean lateral gingival displacement obtained by Racestyptine with a cord (253 ±59 µm, P<.001) and by Racegel with a cord (247 ±61 µm, P<.001) were significantly higher than 200 µm. Lateral displacement observed with Racegel cordless was 207 ±57 µm (P=.53). For vertical gingival displacement, no difference among the 3 techniques was found. The astringent effect of these products was confirmed by the absence of crevicular fluid or bleeding. No periodontal damage was observed immediately or 7-14 days after displacement.

Conclusions: The study showed that cord impregnated with Racestyptine and Racegel with or without a cord provided a sufficient sulcus opening before impression making in prosthodontics, consistent with the clinical requirements for lateral displacement.