The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 139, No 10, 1354-1363.
© 2008 American Dental Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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 Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bennani, V.
Right arrow Articles by Chandler, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bennani, V.
Right arrow Articles by Chandler, N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

CLINICAL PRACTICE

JADA Continuing Education

Gingival Retraction Techniques for Implants Versus Teeth

Current Status



Vincent Bennani, DDS, PhD, Donald Schwass, BSc, BDS and Nicholas Chandler, BDS, MSc, PhD

Background. The authors reviewed and compared gingival retraction techniques used for implants and teeth.

Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors searched the literature using article databases Ovid MEDLINE up to May 2008, PubMED and Google Scholar (advanced search) and the following search terms: gingival retraction, implant abutment, impressions, cement-retained implant restoration, impression coping, peri-implant tissue, emergence profile and tissue conditioning.

Results. The authors found insufficient evidence relating to gingival displacement techniques for impression making for implant dentistry. Gingival retraction techniques and materials are designed primarily for peridental applications; the authors considered their relevance to peri-implant applications and determined that further research and new product development are needed.

Clinical Implications. The use of injectable materials that form an expanding matrix to provide gingival retraction offers effective exposure of preparation finish lines and is suitable for conventional impression-making methods or computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing digital impressions in many situations. There are, however, limitations with any retraction technique, including injectable matrices, for situations in which clinicians place deep implants.

Key Words: Gingival retraction; implant impressions; peri-implant tissue; tissue conditioning

Abbreviations: CAD/CAM: Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing • CO2: Carbon dioxide • Er:YAG: Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet • Nd:YAG: Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2008 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.