Gingival Retraction for Digital Scan Data

Effect of Retraction Techniques on Scan Accuracy

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07119281

Enrollment

Registered

2025-08-13

Start date

2024-02-01

Completion date

2025-05-04

Last updated

2025-09-08

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

Conditions

Data Accuracy, Bleeding Control

Brief summary

The study aims to identify which retraction method offers optimal balance between tissue displacement, scan clarity, and patient comfort, particularly in the esthetic zone, while avoiding the use of CBCT. Results will guide clinicians in selecting the most effective and minimally invasive approach for digital impression workflows.

Detailed description

This prospective clinical study investigates the impact of various gingival retraction techniques on scan accuracy, gingival displacement, bleeding control, and finish line visibility during intraoral scanning of anterior teeth. A total of 32 systemically and periodontally healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups, each using a different retraction method: 1. Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.) 2. Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD) 3. Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG) 4. Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.) Digital impressions were obtained before and after retraction using a Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner. The gingival displacement was measured digitally, and scan accuracy was analyzed via RMS error. Bleeding index, finish line visibility, and patient discomfort (VAS) were also recorded.

Interventions

PROCEDUREGroup A: Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD)

Chemical gingival retraction method

PROCEDUREGroup B: Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)

Chemical gingival retraction method

PROCEDUREGroup C: Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.)

Gingival retraction will be performed by using only laser. Cord will not be used.

PROCEDUREGroup D: Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.)

Mechanical and chemical gingival retraction method will be used.

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

OTHER

Masking

NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

25 Years to 40 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Age 25-40 years 2. Maxillary premolars with normal anatomical size, contour, and position 3. Systemically healthy individuals 4. Healthy gingiva and periodontium around abutments (GI = 0) 5. Good oral hygiene (PI = 0) 6. Pocket depth ≤ 3 mm 7. Thick gingival biotype

Exclusion criteria

1. Smokers 2. Systemic conditions affecting periodontal status 3. Attachment loss, bleeding on probing, or plaque accumulation

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
gingival displacement	30 days	Vertical and horizontal gingival displacement before and after gingival retraction method will be measured by using digital caliper.

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026