Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bowles, W.H.
Right arrow Articles by Vahadi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bowles, W.H.
Right arrow Articles by Vahadi, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evaluation of New Gingival Retraction Agents

W.H. Bowles

Department of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75246

S.J. Tardy

Department of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75246

A. Vahadi

Department of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75246

Current gingival retraction agents are not without undesirable side-effects; there appears to be no ideal gingival retraction agent. Several sympathomimetic amines, capable of producing local vasoconstriction with minimal systemic side-effects, are available as non-prescription nasal decongestants and eye washes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three of these agents for gingival tissue displacement.

Mongrel dogs were used as experimental subjects, in which pulse rate and blood pressure were monitored electronically. Visine® (tetrahydrozoline HCl, 0.05%), Afrin® (oxymetazoline, 0. 05%), and Neosynephrine®(phenylephrine HCl, 0.25%) were the commercial products studied as gingival retraction agents. Plain, untreated cord was used as a mechanical control, and as a vehicle for the three experimental agents. Commercially available cords impregnated with both racemic epinephrine (8%) and alum were also used as standard retraction agents with which the test solutions were compared.

Visine and Afrin produced tissue displacement greater than that of any of the other agents; Neosynephrine, epinephrine, and alum were more effective than the untreated mechanical control. Cardiovascular changes included a slight increase in systolic pressure in the Neosynephrine group, and a slightly lower mean arterial pressure and pulse rate in all three experimental groups.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 70, No. 11, 1447-1449 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345910700111101
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
V. Bennani, D. Schwass, and N. Chandler
Gingival Retraction Techniques for Implants Versus Teeth: Current Status
J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2008; 139(10): 1354 - 1363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]