ABSTRACT:
Introduction: For teeth requiring crowns or replacement in the form of fixed dental prosthesis, gingival retraction becomes a mandatory procedure which aids in recording the prepared and unprepared surfaces of the abutment tooth. Various methods of retraction known in the past include mechanical (copper band, retraction cord packing, rubber dam placement), chemical and chemo mechanical (retraction cords soaked in racemic epinephrine, dl – aluminium sulfate, aluminium chloride, adrenaline hydrochloride and cordless paste – expasyl and expanding polyvinyl siloxane material) , rotary (gingettage, electro rotary) and laser. Though many new techniques have come up, by far, chemo-mechanical retraction of gingiva is widely preferred. Impregnated gingival retraction cords are known to efficiently perform retraction of the gingiva along with hemostasis. Objective: This systematic review is performed to assess the effects of gingival retraction done by cords impregnated with various chemicals on gingival health. Methods: Search Strategy: The data bases of Pubmed Central and Medline were searched for the related topics. Bibliographies of randomized control trials and reviews, identified in the electronic search, were analyzed for studies published outside the electronically searched journals. Results: The systematic search yielded 4 articles and one article was rejected on the basis of irrelevance of title and abstract. One article was excluded after examination of the core data, 2 articles were handpicked and a total of 4 articles were obtained based on the inclusion criteria. Conclusion: From all the articles considered in this review, we may conclude saying that knitted cords impregnated with aluminium chloride and potassium aluminium sulphate are more preferable than the rest.