{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03896961690885073, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015191545574636724, 'mean_word_length': 5.133603238866397, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health.

AIM
To investigate the influence of two cordless techniques on the periodontium in comparison with conventional cords.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
Dental students (n=60) with healthy gingival conditions were recruited - an expanding poly vinyl siloxane material (Magic Foam Cord), a paste-like material (Expasyl), and a conventional retraction cord (Ultrapak) were applied on the buccal aspects of three premolars of each subject. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival index (GI), plaque index, mobility, bleeding, and sensitivity were assessed at baseline, and at 1 and 7 days after application. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whittney tests (alpha=0.05).


RESULTS
The periodontal parameters were not statistically significant among the groups at all time intervals except for the GI, which was increased for all groups after 1 day. The highest was in Expasyl (p=0.011). After 7 days, the GI returned to a non-significant level compared with baseline except for Expasyl, which was still significant (p=0.044). Expasyl induced sensitivity in four subjects. Bleeding was only induced by Ultrapak in 28.3% and 26.7% during and after retraction, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
All techniques caused a temporary gingival inflammation; the greatest was in Expasyl, which also showed slower recovery. Cordless techniques did not induce bleeding during or after retraction.