FindTrial
Sign In

To compare three gingival retraction system with aluminium chloride astringent.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of gingival retraction using three different gingival retraction system with aluminium chloride astringent; retraction cord, copper wire reinforced retraction cord and astringent retraction paste: A randomised control study.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2021/05/033770
Enrollment
60
Registered
2021-05-24
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: copper wire reinforced Retraction cord: It is a Fine Metal Filament reinforced retraction cord and can be Impregnated/ Non-impregnated. When the stay â?? put cord is shaped, it remains

Sponsors

Hardik Maradiya
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Clinically healthy gingiva and periodontium around the teeth Properly root canal treated teeth/vital teeth Maxillary/Mandibular 1st molar

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Tipped, tilted or rotated abutment teeth Patients with gingival recession, high plaque index, bleeding on probing, pernicious oral habits, hormonal imbalance, immunocompromised and debilitating pre-existing systemic conditions.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Clinically acceptable retraction will be achieved.Timepoint: 2 years—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
astringent retraction paste will have good gingival bleeding control capacityTimepoint: 2 years—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactHardik Maradiya

Manubhai Patel Dental College

docsonalmehta@gmail.com9428974820

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026