This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bowles, W.H. Articles by Vahadi, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bowles, W.H. Articles by Vahadi, A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluation of New Gingival Retraction Agents

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.

REFERENCES

• Benson, B.W.; Bomberg, T.J.; Hatch, R.A.; and Hoffman, W. (1986): Tissue Displacement Methods in Fixed Prosthodontics, JProsthet Dent 55:175-181.[CrossRef]
• Cutting, W.C. (1969): Cutting's Handbook of Pharmacology, 4th ed., New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, p. 507.
• Donovan, T.E.; Gandara, B.K.; and Nemetz, H. (1985): Review and Survey of Medicaments Used with Gingival Retraction Cords, JProsthet Dent 53:525-531.[CrossRef]
• Nemetz, E.H. and Seibly, W. (1990): The Use of Chemical Agents in Gingival Retraction, Gen Dent 38:104-108.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Price, H.L. and Dripps, R.D. (1965): General Anesthetics (continued). II. Volatile Anesthetics: Diethyl Ether, Divinyl Ether, Chloroform, Halothane, Methoxyflurane, and other Halogenated Volatile Anesthetics. In: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 3rd ed., L.S. Goodman and A. Gilman, Eds., New York: The Macmillan Company, p. 93.
• Tardy, S.J. and Bowles, W.H. (1989): Evaluation of New Gingival Retraction Agents, J Dent Res 68:414, Abst. No. 1861.
• Tardy, S.J.; Bowles, W.H.; and Chambless, L.A. (1990): Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Visine® (tetrahydrozoline) as a Gingival Retraction Agent, J Prosthet Dent 69:250, Abst. No. 1134.
• Vahadi, A. and Bowles, W.H. (1990): Comparison of New Gingival Retraction Agents with Alum-impregnated Cord, J Dent Res 69:250, Abst. No. 1129.
• Weiner, N. (1985): Norepinephrine, Epinephrine, and the Sympathomimetic Amines. In: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th ed., L.S. Goodman and A. Gilman, Eds., New York: The Macmillan Company, p. 158.
• Woycheshin, F.F. (1964): An Evaluation of the Drugs Used for Gingival Retraction, J Prosthet Dent 14:769-776.[CrossRef]

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 70, No. 11, 1447-1449 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345910700111101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bowles, W.H. Articles by Vahadi, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bowles, W.H. Articles by Vahadi, A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?