Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: F...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry 2019, Vol.9 (1), p.1-7 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 7 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Mahajan, Aarushi Nadi, RoopaR Pai, VeenaS Joshi, SN |
description | Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two participants were selected and a total of 60 teeth were included which were divided randomly in the group of four. Experimental gingival retraction cords were colored yellow and black (braided, chitosan) and compared with aluminum chloride retraction cord and control nonimpregnated cord. Size for yellow chitosan cord and aluminum chloride was 00, and for black chitosan cord and control was 000. A total of four retraction cords were available for evaluation. Cords were inserted in gingival crevice with cord packer and left for 10 min. Results: There was no significant difference between the two experimental cords, but a significant difference with aluminum chloride cord showing better results with only two of the parameters, that is, the ease of packing the cord and fraying of cords. With nonimpregnated cord, there was a significant difference in hemostasis, sulcus widening, dry sulcus, and amount of bleeding at removal where all the other three cords were better than nonimpregnated cord. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference with respect to both the chitosan gingival retraction cords in all the criteria and with aluminum chloride cord except for fraying of cord. Both the experimental cords were superior to that of nonimpregnated cord with respect to all the criteria except for ease of packing the cord. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4103/jid.jid_63_18 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2183497323</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2183497323</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1103-20d42789a1293b24a2133425e6cf123512814a109a1b796b3b156bf039faf1433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkEtPwzAMgCMEEtPYkXskzh1xkr64TROPSZO4wDlK23TL1CYlSQf7I_xeUkBcsGTZh8-2_CF0DWTJgbDbg26WMUXGBBRnaEYpg4TmJDufelomKZT8Ei28P5AYWcHLnM_Q59r2g3Qy6KPC6ii7MbbWYNti9TEop3tlguxwvdfBemnwTpudjhx2KjhZf8O1dY3H7zrscVzQazP2caCzTjcKS9NgY43uB6d2RgbV_Bu9wyuDNwYf9dFiH8bmdIUuWtl5tfitc_T6cP-yfkq2z4-b9Wqb1BCfTihpOM2LUgItWUW5pMAYp6nK6hYoS4EWwCWQCFR5mVWsgjSrWsLKVrbAGZujm5-9g7Nvo_JBHOzoTDwpKBQsOmJ0opIfqnbWe6daMUQx0p0EEDHZF5P5P_vsC9Oee9M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2183497323</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study</title><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Mahajan, Aarushi ; Nadi, RoopaR ; Pai, VeenaS ; Joshi, SN</creator><creatorcontrib>Mahajan, Aarushi ; Nadi, RoopaR ; Pai, VeenaS ; Joshi, SN</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two participants were selected and a total of 60 teeth were included which were divided randomly in the group of four. Experimental gingival retraction cords were colored yellow and black (braided, chitosan) and compared with aluminum chloride retraction cord and control nonimpregnated cord. Size for yellow chitosan cord and aluminum chloride was 00, and for black chitosan cord and control was 000. A total of four retraction cords were available for evaluation. Cords were inserted in gingival crevice with cord packer and left for 10 min. Results: There was no significant difference between the two experimental cords, but a significant difference with aluminum chloride cord showing better results with only two of the parameters, that is, the ease of packing the cord and fraying of cords. With nonimpregnated cord, there was a significant difference in hemostasis, sulcus widening, dry sulcus, and amount of bleeding at removal where all the other three cords were better than nonimpregnated cord. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference with respect to both the chitosan gingival retraction cords in all the criteria and with aluminum chloride cord except for fraying of cord. Both the experimental cords were superior to that of nonimpregnated cord with respect to all the criteria except for ease of packing the cord.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2229-5194</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2231-2706</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/jid.jid_63_18</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Mumbai: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Aluminum ; Aluminum chloride ; Chitosan ; Chloride ; Chlorides ; Clinical trials ; Dentistry ; Gingiva ; Hemostasis ; Packaging ; Statistical analysis ; Teeth</subject><ispartof>Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, 2019, Vol.9 (1), p.1-7</ispartof><rights>2019. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1103-20d42789a1293b24a2133425e6cf123512814a109a1b796b3b156bf039faf1433</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mahajan, Aarushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadi, RoopaR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, VeenaS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, SN</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study</title><title>Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry</title><description>Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two participants were selected and a total of 60 teeth were included which were divided randomly in the group of four. Experimental gingival retraction cords were colored yellow and black (braided, chitosan) and compared with aluminum chloride retraction cord and control nonimpregnated cord. Size for yellow chitosan cord and aluminum chloride was 00, and for black chitosan cord and control was 000. A total of four retraction cords were available for evaluation. Cords were inserted in gingival crevice with cord packer and left for 10 min. Results: There was no significant difference between the two experimental cords, but a significant difference with aluminum chloride cord showing better results with only two of the parameters, that is, the ease of packing the cord and fraying of cords. With nonimpregnated cord, there was a significant difference in hemostasis, sulcus widening, dry sulcus, and amount of bleeding at removal where all the other three cords were better than nonimpregnated cord. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference with respect to both the chitosan gingival retraction cords in all the criteria and with aluminum chloride cord except for fraying of cord. Both the experimental cords were superior to that of nonimpregnated cord with respect to all the criteria except for ease of packing the cord.</description><subject>Aluminum</subject><subject>Aluminum chloride</subject><subject>Chitosan</subject><subject>Chloride</subject><subject>Chlorides</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Gingiva</subject><subject>Hemostasis</subject><subject>Packaging</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><issn>2229-5194</issn><issn>2231-2706</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNplkEtPwzAMgCMEEtPYkXskzh1xkr64TROPSZO4wDlK23TL1CYlSQf7I_xeUkBcsGTZh8-2_CF0DWTJgbDbg26WMUXGBBRnaEYpg4TmJDufelomKZT8Ei28P5AYWcHLnM_Q59r2g3Qy6KPC6ii7MbbWYNti9TEop3tlguxwvdfBemnwTpudjhx2KjhZf8O1dY3H7zrscVzQazP2caCzTjcKS9NgY43uB6d2RgbV_Bu9wyuDNwYf9dFiH8bmdIUuWtl5tfitc_T6cP-yfkq2z4-b9Wqb1BCfTihpOM2LUgItWUW5pMAYp6nK6hYoS4EWwCWQCFR5mVWsgjSrWsLKVrbAGZujm5-9g7Nvo_JBHOzoTDwpKBQsOmJ0opIfqnbWe6daMUQx0p0EEDHZF5P5P_vsC9Oee9M</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Mahajan, Aarushi</creator><creator>Nadi, RoopaR</creator><creator>Pai, VeenaS</creator><creator>Joshi, SN</creator><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study</title><author>Mahajan, Aarushi ; Nadi, RoopaR ; Pai, VeenaS ; Joshi, SN</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1103-20d42789a1293b24a2133425e6cf123512814a109a1b796b3b156bf039faf1433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aluminum</topic><topic>Aluminum chloride</topic><topic>Chitosan</topic><topic>Chloride</topic><topic>Chlorides</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Gingiva</topic><topic>Hemostasis</topic><topic>Packaging</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mahajan, Aarushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadi, RoopaR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, VeenaS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, SN</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mahajan, Aarushi</au><au>Nadi, RoopaR</au><au>Pai, VeenaS</au><au>Joshi, SN</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry</jtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>7</epage><pages>1-7</pages><issn>2229-5194</issn><eissn>2231-2706</eissn><abstract>Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two chitosan gingival retraction cords with different cord thickness and to compare the effectiveness of chitosan cords against aluminum chloride gingival retraction and nonimpregnated retraction cord on different parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two participants were selected and a total of 60 teeth were included which were divided randomly in the group of four. Experimental gingival retraction cords were colored yellow and black (braided, chitosan) and compared with aluminum chloride retraction cord and control nonimpregnated cord. Size for yellow chitosan cord and aluminum chloride was 00, and for black chitosan cord and control was 000. A total of four retraction cords were available for evaluation. Cords were inserted in gingival crevice with cord packer and left for 10 min. Results: There was no significant difference between the two experimental cords, but a significant difference with aluminum chloride cord showing better results with only two of the parameters, that is, the ease of packing the cord and fraying of cords. With nonimpregnated cord, there was a significant difference in hemostasis, sulcus widening, dry sulcus, and amount of bleeding at removal where all the other three cords were better than nonimpregnated cord. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference with respect to both the chitosan gingival retraction cords in all the criteria and with aluminum chloride cord except for fraying of cord. Both the experimental cords were superior to that of nonimpregnated cord with respect to all the criteria except for ease of packing the cord.</abstract><cop>Mumbai</cop><pub>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><doi>10.4103/jid.jid_63_18</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2229-5194 |
ispartof | Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, 2019, Vol.9 (1), p.1-7 |
issn | 2229-5194 2231-2706 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2183497323 |
source | Medknow Open Access Medical Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Aluminum Aluminum chloride Chitosan Chloride Chlorides Clinical trials Dentistry Gingiva Hemostasis Packaging Statistical analysis Teeth |
title | Comparative evaluation of experimental chitosan gingival retraction cords with aluminum chloride and nonimpregnated retraction cords: An In vivo study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T20%3A44%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20evaluation%20of%20experimental%20chitosan%20gingival%20retraction%20cords%20with%20aluminum%20chloride%20and%20nonimpregnated%20retraction%20cords:%20An%20In%20vivo%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Interdisciplinary%20Dentistry&rft.au=Mahajan,%20Aarushi&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=7&rft.pages=1-7&rft.issn=2229-5194&rft.eissn=2231-2706&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/jid.jid_63_18&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2183497323%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2183497323&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |