Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

67

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT METHODS AND MEDICAMENTS USED BY PROSTHODONTISTS AND GENERAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA Sahar Asaad Sabbak,* BDS, MSc. Hanaa Mohammed Al-Elshaikh,* BDS, MSc

An accurate final impression for fixed prosthodontics requires careful management of the soft tissue. Various methods and medicaments have been described in the literature to create an acceptable environment for making an impression. This survey study was designed to find out the frequency of using different methods and medicaments for gingival displacement by prosthodontists and general practitioners in the different areas in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A questionnaire was formulated and distributed among dentists in the target population. Responses from two hundred and thirty-two prosthodontists and general practitioners were included in this study. The results indicated that a majority of the respondents use the mechanico-chemical method of gingival displacement and most of those respondents use aluminum chloride medicament. It was also found that there is no statistically significant relationship between the medicament used and the degree, institution and year of graduation of the respondents from the dental schools.

Introduction
An impression or negative likeness of the teeth and surrounding structures is used
Received 12.97, Revised 21.02.98, Accepted 02.03.98 'Lecturer, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, PO Box 5967, Riyadh 11432, Saudi Arabia ^Lecturer, Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Address reprint requests to: Dr. Sahar Asaad Sabbak

to obtain a cast on which the restoration is then made. A good impression is an exact negative replica of each prepared tooth and must include all of the prepared surfaces as well as an adequate amount of unprepared tooth structure adjacent to the margin. Therefore, a gingival tissue displacement may be needed to obtain an access to the prepared tooth. This may involve the use of mechanical, mechanico-

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

68

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

chemical, surgical (that includes gingival and periodontal surgery, electrosurgery and rotary gingival curettage) or combination of two or more of these methods, any of which may produce an adverse local or systemic response. The mechanical method of gingival displacement was among the first developed. This method involves physical displacement of the gingival tissue by placement of materials within the gingival sulcus. Several types of materials may be used like the rubber dam, ' plain cotton thread, unwaxed floss ' and untreated surgical silk. The use of copper bands,6 acrylic resin copings, temporary aluminum shells, temporary polycarbonate crown shells, cotton twills rolled in a creamy mixture of zinc oxide and eugenol cement, leather and elastic rings was also documented. Non-medicated retraction cords is the most conservative mechanical method of gingival displacement.' ' ' In the mechanico-chemical method, cords, strings or cotton pellets are used to keep homeostatic chemical agents in contact with the gingival tissues and confine them to the application site. The homeostatic chemical agents can be either vasoconstrictors like epinephrine '" or astringents like aluminum
., ir x . , 1,3.4.6.8.11,13.15.19,20 / i ,

technique of using rotary diamond instruments to enlarge the sulcus has been advocated.' The aim of this survey was to determine the frequency of the prefered gingival displacement methods and medicaments used among prosthodontists and general practitioners in different areas of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Materials and Methods

Questionnaires were sent to dentists in different areas in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Table 1). In this study, responses from prosthodontists and general practitioners were considered. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree, institution and year of graduation. The questionnaire following questions: contained the

Do you check medical history? a. Routinely b. Occasionally c. Never Do you check pressure? pulse rate and blood

chloride, sulfate (alum),


3.11.13.15.21

aluminum potassium
\ 1-3.5.6,8,11,13,18 , ,r .
fKA

\c .
,,

aluminum sulfate,
r
,

a. Routinely b. Occasionally c. Never Check your first method of choice for gingival displacement prior to impression making for constructing fixed prostheses. a. Mechanical (e.g. Rubber dam, plain cords, copper bands...etc) b. Mechanico-chemical (Cords soaked in epinephrine, astringents or combination of both c. Surgical (Using a knife, electrosurgery or rotary diamond instruments) (Specify).

ferric subsulfate (Monsel s solution), ferric sulfate, ................ Negatol solution (Negatan),' tannic chloride acid,' zinc these agents. and combination of any of Surgical excision of the gingival tissues with a surgical scalpel and apical repositioning of the periodontal tissues can be used for exposing the subgingival margins. Electrosurgery can also be used for the same reason in the presence of a suprabony pocket by creating a gingival trough around the margins before impression making.15-68"22 To eliminate the trauma of pressure packing and the necessity of electrosurgical procedures, the

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

69

Combination of methods

(Specify).
Others (specify). If you use the mechanico-chemical techn;que, indicate the name of the chemical agent you soak cords in. a. Epinephrine b. Astringents 1. Aluminum chloride 2. Potassium aluminum sulfate 3. Ferric sulfate 4. Ferric subsulfate 5. Tannic acid 6. Negatol solution 7. Combination of any of these chemical agents (Specify). 8. Others (Specify).

The data generated were collected and statistically analyzed.

Table 1. Number and percentage of respondents per area.

Area Hail Najran Tabouk Al-Baha Al-Qaseem Riyadh Al-Quriyyat Makkah Al-Mukarramah Al-Madinah Al- Munawwarah

No. of Respondents 7 9 9 17 4 142 1 24 4 6 7 2

Percentage of Respondents 3.5 4.5 4.5 8.4 2.0 70.3 0.5 10.3 2.0 2.6 3.5 1.0

What is the concentration of the chemical agent that you use for gingival displacement? ___________________ % How much time do you keep the chemically-soaked retraction cord inside the gingival sulcus before you make a final impression?___________ minutes Have you had a patient complaining of any systemic manifestations as a result of gingival displacement procedures? 1. Yes 2. No * If yes, check the symptom(s): 1. Increased pulse rate 2. Increased blood pressure 3. Syncope 4. Palpitation 5. Cardiac arrest 6. Others (Specify) ________________ Do you routinely wet the gingival retraction cord before removal from the gingival sulcus? a. Yes b. No

Aseer East Province North Fronteer Al-Jaish Jizan * No response

* **

* **
** No collected data

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of checking medical condition of patients by respondents.

Checked Condition Medical history Pulse rate/ Blood Pressure

Routinely Checked Freq.(%) 125(53.9) 77(33.2)

Occasionally Checked Freq.(%) 101(43.5) 134(57.8)

Never Checked Freq.(%) 6(2.6) 21(9.0)

Results

The percentage of respondents routinely check medical condition found to be 53.9% (Table 2). 2.6% of the

who was

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2. MAY - AUGUST 1998

70

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

respondents indicated that they never check the medical condition with 43.5% occasionally checking it. On the other hand, majority of respondents check pulse rate and blood pressure occasionally (57.8%). A little over than thirty-three percent of the respondents check it routinely with 9.0% who never check it. At all years of graduation the highest frequency and percentage of respondents [184(83.64%)] prefer mechanico-chemical method of gingival displacement as their first choice (Table 3). As the year of graduation becomes more recent, there is an increase in the frequency of respondents using different gingival displacement methods. The percentage of respondents

Table 4. Frequency and percentage of respondents using and not using medicaments compared to year of graduation.

Year of Graduation

Medicament used Freq.(%) 1(100.0) 3(100.0) 20(71.43) 55(83.33) 112(89.60) 191(85.65)

Medicament Not Used Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 8(28.57) 11(16.67) 13(10.40) 32(14.35)

Total 1(0.45) 3(1.35) 28(12.56) 66(29.60) 125(56.05) 223

1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1996 Total Freq.(%)

Frequency missing = 9

x2>4828

P,0.089

Table 3. Frequency and percentage of respondents with gingival displacement method of choice compared to year of graduation.

Year of Graduation 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1996 Total Freq.(%)

Mechanical Freq (%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 6(22.22) 7(10.94) 11(8.80) 24(10.91)

Mechanicochemical Freq.(%) 1(100.0) 2(66.67) 19(70.37) 52(81.25) 110(88.0) 184(83.64)

Surgical Freq (%) 0(00.00) 1(33.33) 1(3.70) 2(3.13) 4(3.20) 8(3.64)

Combination Freq (%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 1(3.70) 3(4.69) 0(00.00) 4(1.82)

Total Freq (%) 1(0.46) 3(1.36) 27(12.27) 64(29.09) 125(56.82) 220

Frequency missing = 12

using the mechanico-chemical method increases as the graduation year goes from 1960 to 1996. As the graduation year goes from 1970 to 1996, there is a decrease in the percentage of those using the mechanical method. At the same period, the percentage of respondents who prefer to use the surgical technique of gingival displacement remains almost similar. Combination of methods is preferred by only 3.70% and 4.69% respondents who graduated in 1970-1979 and 1980-1989 periods, respectively. As the year of graduation becomes more recent, there is an increase in the

frequency of respondents using different medicaments in gingival displacement as shown in Table 4. All respondents who graduated in the period 1950-1969 use medicaments in gingival displacement. This percentage decreases to 71.43% as the graduation year moves from 1970-1979 period after which it increases again. The chi-square analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between the used medicament and the year of graduation (X2= 4.828, P= 0.089). As the year of graduation becomes more recent, there is a higher frequency but a lower percentage of respondents

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

71

using epinephrine in gingival displacement (Table 5). The highest frequency and percentage of respondents [108 (46.96%)], regardless of year of graduation, use aluminum chloride. The frequency and percentage of respondents using aluminum chloride is increased as the graduation year becomes more recent. The highest percentage of respondents using potassium aluminum sulfate (10.45%) is found in the 1980-1989 period. Ferric sulfate was found to be used by 33.33% respondents who graduated in 1960-1969. This percentage is decreased then increased again in 1990-199 , period for 15.0%. Tannic acid is used by 4.17% and ^48% respondents who graduated in 1970-1979 and 1980-1989, respectively. Only 3.57% of graduated respondents in 1990-1996 use tannic acid. A combination of

tannic acid. A combination of medicaments is used by 1.49% respondents who graduated in 1980-1989. Other solutions are used by 4.48% respondents who graduated in the same period. The highest frequency and percentage of respondents [188 (83.56%)] with different degrees prefer to use the mechanico-chemical method of gingival displacement (Table 6). Higher percentages of respondents with MS/PhD degrees prefer to use the mechanical, surgical and combination of methods than those with BDS degrees. The total frequency and percentage of respondents with a BDS degree using different methods of gingival displacement [173 (76.89%)] are more than those respondents with MS/PhD degree [52 (23.11%)].

Table 5. Frequency and percentage of respondents using different medicaments in gingival displacement compared to year of graduation.

Year of Graduation 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1996 Total Freq.(%)

Ep Freq.(%) 1(100.0) 2(66.67) 10(41.67) 24(35.82) 28(20.0) 65(28.26)

A.C Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 8(33.33) 25(37.31) 75(53.57) 108(46.96)

P.A.S Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 1(4.17) 7(10.45) 6(4.29) 14(6.09)

F.S Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 1(33.33) 4(16.67) 4(5.97) 21(15.0) 30(13.04)

T.A Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 1(4.17) 3(4.48) 5(3.57) 9(3.91)

C Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 1(1.49) 0(00.00) 1(0.43)

0 Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 3(4.48) 0(00.00) 3(1.30)

Total Freq.*(%) 1(0.43) 3(1.30) 24(10.43) 67(29.13) 135(58.70) 230

Ep: Epinephrine, A.C: Aluminum Chloride, P.A.S: Potassium Aluminum Sulfate, F.S: Ferric Sulfate, T.A: Tannic Acid, C: Combination of medicaments, O: Others. *Sum of total frequency is more than the sum of frequency of respondents in Table 4 because some respondents prefer to use more than one medicament individually

Table 6. Frequency and percentage of respondents with gingival displacement method of choice compared to degree.

Degree

Mechanical Freq.(%)

Mechanicochemical Freq.(%) 149(86.13) 39 (75.0) 188(83.56)

Surgical Freq.(%) 6 (3.47) 2 (3.85) 8 (3.56)

Combination Freq.(%) 1 (0.58) 3 (5.77) 4(1.78)

Total Freq.(%) 173(76.89) 52(23.11) 225

BDS MS/PHD Total Freq.(%)

17(9.83) 8(15.38) 25(11.11)

Frequency missing = 7 THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL. VOLUME 10. NUMBER 2. MAY - AUGUST 1998

72

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

A high frequency and percentage of respondents with BDS and MS/PhD [195(85.53%)] degrees use medicaments (Table 7). A higher frequency and a slightly lower percentage of respondents with a BDS degree 150 (85.23%) use medicaments than those with MS/PhD degree of 45 (86.54%). The chi-square analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between the used medicament and degree (X2 = 0.00014, P = 0.991). The highest frequency and percentage of respondents [109 (46.58)], with different degrees, use aluminum chloride (Table 8).

higher percentage of respondents with MS/ PhD degree (14.55%) than that of respondents with BDS degree (12.85%). Tannic acid is not used by respondents with MS/PhD degree, but by those with BDS degree (5.03%). More than one percent of the respondents with MS/PhD degrees use a combination of medicaments, while BDS degree holders do not use it. Other solutions are used by 1.12 % and 1.82 % of respondents with BDS and Ms/PhD degrees, respectively. Table 9 shows a higher frequency and percentage of respondents who graduated from K.S.A. (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

Table 7: Frequency and percentage of respondents using and not using medicaments compared to degree.

Degree BDS MS/PHD Total Freq.(%)


Frequency missing = 4

Medicament used Freq.(%) 150(85.23) 45(86.54) 195(85.53)

Medicament Not Used Freq.(%) 26(14.77) 7(13.46) 33(14.47)

Total Freq.(%) 176(77.19) 52(22.81) 228


P= 0.991

X = 0.00014

Table 8. Frequency and percentage of respondents using different medicaments in gingival displacement compared to degree.

Degree BDS MS/PHD Total Freq.(%)

Ep Freq.(%) 43(24.02) 23(41.82) 66(28.21)

A.C Freq.(y%) 90(50.28) 19(34.55) 109(46.58)

P.A.S Freq.(%) 12(6.70) 3(5.45) 15(6.41)

F.S Freq.(%) 23(12.85) 8(14.55) 31(13.25)

T.A Freq.(%) 9(5.03) 0(00.00) 9(3.85)

C Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 1(1.82) 1(0.43)

O Freq.(%) 2(1.12) 1(1.82) 3(1.28)

Total Freq.*(%) 179(76.50) 55(23.50) 234

Ep: Epinephrine, AC: Aluminum Chloride, P.A.S: Potassium Aluminum Sulfate, F.S: Ferric Sulfate, T.A: Tannic Acid, C: Combination of medicaments, O: Others. *Sum of total frequency is more than sum of frequency of respondents in Table (7) because some respondents prefer to use more than one medicament individually.

Epinephrine is used by respondents with BDS degree (24.02%) less than by those with MS/PhD degree (41.82%). Majority of respondents with BDS degree use aluminum chloride (50.28%), while most of those with MS/PhD degree use epinephrine (41.82%). Aluminum chloride and potassium aluminum sulfate are more used by respondents with BD" degree (50.28% and 6.70%, respectively) than those with MS/PhD degree (34.55% and 5.45%, respectively). Ferric sulfate is used by a

institutions [141(62.39%)] than those who graduated from institutions other than K.S.A. [85(37.61)]. The highest frequency and percentage of respondents (189(83.63%) prefer to use the mechanicochemical method of gingival displacement. Those respondents who graduated from K.S.A. institutions have a higher frequency and percentage [124(87.94%)] than others [65(76.47%)]. The percentages of respondents, who graduated from K.S.A. institutions, who prefer to use mechanical.

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

73

Table 9 Frequency and percentage of respondents with gingival graduation.

displacement method of choice compared to institution of

Institution Mechanical Freq.(%) 14(9.93) 11(12.94) 25(11.06)

Mechanicochemical Freq.(%) 124(87.94) 65(76.47) 189(83.63)

Surgical Freq.(%) 3(2.13) 5(5.88) 8(3.54)

Combination Freq.(%) 0(00.00) 4(4.71) 4(1.77)

Total Freq.(%) 141(62.39) 85(37.61) 226

K.S.A* Other countries Total Freq.(%)

Frequency missing = 6

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Table 10. Frequency and percentage of respondents using and not using medicaments compared to institution of graduation.

Institution

Medicament used Freq.(%) 125(88.65) 71(80.68)

Medicament Not Used Freq.(%) 16(11.35) 17(19.32)

Total 141(61.57) 88(38.43)

K.S.A.* Other countries Total Freq.(%)

196(85.59)

33(14.41)

229

Frequency missing = 3 %2= 2.182 *K.S.A. : Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia

P= 0.140

graduated from K.S.A. and other institutions prefer to use different medicaments (88.65% and 80.68%, respectively) constituting 196 (85.59%) of the total frequency of respondents. More respondents who graduated from K.S.A. institutions use medicament (88.65%) than those who graduated from other institutions (80.68%). The chi-square analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between the use of medicaments and the institution of graduation (X2 = 2.182, P = 0.140). The highest frequency and percentage of respondents [110 (46.61%)], regardless of institution of graduation, prefer to use aluminum chloride (Table 11). The highest

Table 11: Frequency and percentage of respondents using different medicaments in gingival displacement compared to institution of graduation.

Institution K.S.A.* Other countries Total Freq.(%)

Ep Freq.(%) 28(18.30) 39(46.99)

A.C Freq.(%) 87(56.86) 23(27.71)

P.A.S Freq.(%) 7(4.58) 8(9.64)

F.S Freq.(%) 23(15.03) 8(9.64)

T.A Freq.(%) 6(3.92) 3(3.61)

C Freq.(%) 1(0.65) 0(00.00)

0 Freq.(%) 1(0.65) 2(2.41)

Total Freq.**(%) 153(64.83) 83(35.17)

67(28.39)

110(46.61)

15(6.36)

31(13.14)

9(3.81)

1(0.42)

3(1.27)

236

Ep: Epinephrine, AC: Aluminum Chloride, P.A.S: Potassium Aluminum Sulfate, F.S: Ferric Sulfate, T.A: Tannic Acid, C: Combination of medicaments, O: Others * K.S.A. : Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia "Sum of total frequency is more than sum of frequency of respondents in Table (10) because some respondents prefer to use more than one medicament individually

surgical and combination of methods are less than those who graduated from other institutions. Table 10 shows that respondents who
THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL. VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

percentage of respondents who graduated from K.S.A. institutions prefer to use aluminum chloride (56.86%) followed by epinephrine (18.30%), ferric sulfate (15.03%), potassium aluminum sulfate

74

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

(4.58%), tannic acid (3.92%) then combination of medicaments and other solutions (0.65%). Epinephrine and aluminum chloride are preferred to be used by higher frequencies and percentages of respondents who graduated from institutions other than K.S.A. 39 (46.99%) and 23 (27.71%), respectively. Equal frequencies and percentages of respondents who graduated from those institutions use potassium aluminum sulfate and ferric sulfate 8 (9.64%). Tannic acid is used by 3.61% of those who graduated from institutions other than K.S.A. In general, percentage of respondents, who graduated from K.S.A. institutions, using aluminum chloride, ferric sulfate and combination of medicaments are more than those respondents who graduated from other

institutions. In Table 12, 78.78% of respondents use ephinephrine in a concentration of equal to or less than 2%. It is also used by 12.12% of respondents in a concentration of 3-5% solutions. More than six percent of respondents use it in a concentration of 8% and 3.03% of them use it in 10-15% concentrations. Aluminum chloride is used in equal to or less than 5% by 37.03% of respondents. 33.34% of them use it in a concentration of 15-20%. Only 3.7% of respondents use 8 10% aluminum chloride. It is also used by 16.66% respondents in concentrations of 21.3 - 25%. More than nine percent use it in a concentration of 30 - 35%. Potassium alumnium sulfate is used by 66.66% and 33.33% respondents in concentrations of 2% and 8%, respectively. Ferric sulfate is

Table 12: Frequency and percentage of respondents using different concentrations of medicaments for gingival displacement.

Ep Cone. Freq.(%) Cone.

A.C Freq.(%) Cone.

P.A.S Freq.(%) Cone.

F.S Freq.(%) Cone.

T.A Freq.(%)

<2

26(78.78)

<5

20(37.03)

2 8

2(66.66) 1(33.33)

<5

5(23.81)

10 15-20

1(50.00) 1(50.00)

3-5 8 10-15

4(12.12) 2(6.06) 1(3 03)

8-10 15-20 21 3-25 30-35

2(3.7) 18(33.34) 9(16 66) 5(9.26)

15-15.5 21 30-35

12(57.14) 1(4.76) 3(14 28)

Table 13: Frequency and percentage of respondents using different application times of medicaments for gingival displacement

Application Time (min) <5 5-7 8-10 13-15 16-18 Total Freq.(%)

Ep. Freq.(%) 30(45.47) 27(40.91) 8(12.12) 0(00.00) 1(1-52) 66(28.45)

A.C Freq.(%) 32(28.83) 49(44.14) 26(23.42) 4(3.6) 0(00.00) 111(47.84)

P.A.S Freq.(%) 12(80.00) 2(13.33) 1(6.67) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 15(6.47)

F.S Freq.(%) 7(22.59) 16(51.62) 8(25.81) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 31(13.36)

T.A Freq.(%) 3(33.33) 4(44.44) 2(22.22) 0(00.00) 0(00.00) 9(3.88)

Total Freq.(%) 84(36.21) 98(42.24) 45(19.40) 4(1.72) 1(0.43) 232

The sum of the columns is approximately 100% THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

75

used by 57.14% respondents in a concentration of 15 - 15.5% while 23.81% respondents use it in less than 5% solution. Only 4.76% of the respondents use it in 20 - 21% concentration. At a concentration of 30-35%, it is used by 14.28% of respondents. Tannic acid is used by 50% of the respondents in a concentration of 10% while the other 50% use it in a concentration of 15-20%. Table 13 shows the majority of respondents (45.47% and 40.9%) use epinephrine for less than 5 and 5-7 minutes, respectively. Only 1.52% use it for 16-18 minutes. Regarding aluminum chloride, 44.14% of respondents were found using it for 5-7 minutes while 3.6% of them use it for 13-15 minutes. Majority of the respondents (80%) use potassium aluminum sulfate for less than 5 minutes and 51.62% and 44.44% of them were found using ferric sulfate and tannic acid, respectively for 5-7 minutes. In this study, only 3.4% of respondents had patients complaining of systemic manifestations as a result of gingival displacement. These included increased pulse rate, increased blood pressure, palpitation and rarely syncope. There was no report of cardiac arrest as a result of the procedure. Majority of respondents (96.7%) had no patients experiencing any systemic symptoms. Only 0.9% of respondents did not give any information. It was found that 50.9% of respondents wet the retraction cord before removal from the gingival sulcus, while 47.8% do not. Respondents who failed to indicate any preference were 1.3%.

improper history taking and interpretation, can create ineffective or even detrimental oral health care treatment and probable fatal systemic reaction. The results of this survey indicate that 53.9% of respondents check the medical condition of the patients routinely, 43.5% check it occasionally and only 2.6% never check it. Donovan et al (1985) reported a high percentage of respondents (98.18%) checking the medical history of the patients. Dentists must assess vital signs including blood pressure, pulse, respiration and temperature. The dentist must also consider the environmental effects of the dental office on blood pressure and realize that an elevated blood pressure may not be indicative of an organic disease. In this survey, a higher percentage of respondents (33.2%) record the pulse rate and blood pressure routinely than those reported by Donovan et al '3 (1985) (3.03% checked the pulse rate and 8.48% checked the blood pressure). In this study, majority of respondents (approximately 83.6%), with different institutions, degrees and years of graduation, prefer to use the mechanicochemical method of gingival displacement. This was also reported by Donovan et al'3 (1985). Shaw and Krejci12 (1986), on the other hand, reported much lower values. They reported 33% and 24% of surveyed dentists selecting the mechanico-chemical method of gingival displacement as their first and second method of choice, respectively. In the present study, as the year of graduation becomes more recent, more respondents use this method. This could be due to the marketing and availability of different medicaments more than before. This also reflects the increased use of medicaments in dental schools. In this study, the total percentages of respondents who prefer to use the mechanical method of gingival displacement (10.91%, 11.11% and 11.06% in Tables 3,6 and 9, respectively) are higher

Discussion

Identification of the medical condition of the patient is considered critical. Inappropriate identification, through
THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

76

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

than that reported by Shaw and Krejci (1986) as first and second method of choice (7% and 6%, respectively). On the other hand, Donovan et al'3 (1985) reported 16.97% dentists using plain cords in gingival displacement. The total percentages of respondents preferring to use the surgical method of gingival displacement (3.64%, 3.56% and 3.54%) are slightly higher than that reported by Shaw and Krejci ,2 (1986) (2%) as the first choice (in the form of electrosurgery), but they are much lower than that of dentists choosing it as the second choice (17%). In this study, the total percentage of respondents who prefer to use epinephrine in gingival displacement (28.26%, 28.21% and 29.39% in Tables 5, 8 and 11) are much lower than that of respondents choosing it as their first choice (55%), but higher than that of those choosing it as their second choice (20%). Donovan et al (1985) reported a much higher percentage of respondents using epinephrine (79.3%). In the present study, as the year of graduation becomes more recent, there is a decline in the preference of using epinephrine in gingival displacement. More prosthodontists (41.82%) prefer to use epinephrine than general practitioners (24.02%). The percentage of respondents, who graduated from a Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (K.S.A.) institution, using epinephrine (18.30%) is much lower than that of respondents who graduated from institutions other than K.S.A. (46.99%). Regional differences may explain this reduction, but other factors may be involved. Moreover, aluminum chloride is preferred to be used by many respondents for gingival displacement more than any other medicament in this study. Donovan et al'3 (1985) reported only 19.39% of dentists using aluminum chloride. In the present study, aluminum chloride is preferred more by respondents with a Bachelor (BDS) degree and more by those

who graduated from a K.S.A. institution. Its use increases as the graduation year becomes more recent. This could be due to the increased level of awareness of the side-effects of epinephrine. This study also reveals that potassium aluminum sulfate is used by respondents less than ferric sulfate. This could be due to the fact that ferric sulfate produces gingival displacement after a relatively shorter application time of 1-3 minutes. The resulting tissue displacement is maintained for at least 30 minutes, so that repeating is seldom necessary for multiple impressions. Tissue healing is also rapid. Tannic acid is used by respondents less than other chemicals. This could be due to the fact that it has a minimum effectiveness as a gingival displacement agent. In the present study, there is no statistically significant relationship between the used medicaments and the year, degree and institution of graduation. Different strengths of epinephrine are used in gingival displacement. These are 0.1%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 16% and 32%. Although the most commonly used one is 8%, 4 only 6.06% of respondents in the present study use it in the same concentration. Other authors recommended the use of the 4% epinephrine. In this study, 12.12% of respondents use it in 3-5% solutions. Most of respondents (78.78%) use it in a concentration of equal to or less than 2%. Aluminum chloride solutions are available in concentrations of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 21.3% and 25%.,J5,23 Concentrations of 5% and 10% were reported to be safe and effective for gingival displacement. However, other studies reported local tissue destruction with concentrations of 10% and 15%. In this study, 37.03% of respondents use aluminum chloride in equal to or less than 5%, while 33.34% of them use it in 1520% solutions. The 25% solution was

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2. MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

77

advocated for use with other chemical agents because it approximately doubled the homeostatic success of the other chemical used.'7 In this study, only 16.66% of respondents use it in 21.3-25% solutions. Some respondents (9.26%) use it in 3035% solutions. Potassium aluminum sulfate (Alum) is used in concentrations of 10% and 100% for gingival displacement.' In this study, most of respondents (66.66%) use it in a concentration of 2% while 33.33% use it in 8% solution. Ferric sulfate is used as a gingival retraction agent in a concentration of 13.3%. ' Other concentrations of 15.5%, 20% and 21% were also reported.415'9 In this study, most of respondents (57.14%) use ferric sulfate in concentrations of 15-15.5%, while only 4.76% use it in a concentration of 21%. Tannic acid is used in 20% and 100% concentrations.24 Some authors suggest to use it in 15-25% concentrations.2 In the present study, 50% of respondents use it in a concentration of 10% and the other 50% use it in 15-20% concentrations. The reported application time of epinephrine varies from 5 to 15 minutes.25 In this study, 45.49% of respondents use it for less than 5 minutes, while 40.91% use it for 5-7 minutes. Some respondents (12.12%) use it for 8-10 minutes. Only 1.52% of them use it for 16-18 minutes. A 10-minute application time of aluminum chloride in the sulcus is usually sufficient.' In this study, most of respondents (44.14%) use it for 5-7 minutes, while 23.12% of them use it for 8-10 minutes and 28.83% use it for less than 5 minutes. Only 3.6% of respondents use it for 13-15 minutes. Potassium aluminum sulfate has been recommended to be used for 10 minutes.'6 In the present study, most of respondents (80%) use it for less than 5 minutes, 13.33% of them use for 5-7 minutes and only 6.67% of respondents use it for 8-10 minutes. The recommended application time of ferric sulfate is 1 to 3 minutes, but
THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

can be used for 10 to 20 minutes.' In this study, 51.62% of respondents use it for 5-7 minutes, 25.81% of them use it for 8-10 minutes and 22.59% of them use it for less than 5 minutes. Tannic acid is used for 10 minutes.' In the present study, 22.22% of respondents use it for 8-10 minutes. Most of respondents (44.44%) use it for 5-7 minutes, while 33.33% of them use it for less than 5 minutes. In this study, the low percent of respondents (3.4%) reporting adverse systemic reactions as a result of gingival displacement procedures could be due to the decline in using epinephrine. This may be due to the awareness of its systemic side-effects. Furthermore, the increased number of reports in the dental literature on the potential reaction to the use of epinephrine products is an additional contributing factor. Donovan et al '3 (1985) reported a much higher percent of dentists (20%) who reported patients that experienced some systemic manifestations to gingival displacement procedures. On the other hand, Shaw and Krejci '2 (1986) reported that 25%, 20%, 14% and 5% of respondents who chose electrosurgery, epinephrine cord, other mechanical aids and astringent cord, respectively, observed adverse reactions. Removing a dry cord from the gingival crevice can cause injury to the delicate epithelial lining.5 In this study, only 50.9% of respondents wet the gingival retraction cord before removal from the gingival sulcus. Donovan et al '3 (1985) reported a much lower percentage of respondents (33.94%) wetting the cords before removal from the gingival sulcus.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this survey study, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Majority of respondents (53.9%)

78

SABBAK AND AL ELSHAIKH

check the medical condition of the patients on a routine basis, while 43.5% of them check it occasionally. 2. Majority of respondents (57.8%) check pulse rate and blood pressure occasionally and 33.2% of them check those signs routinely. Majority of respondents (approximately 83.6%) from different institutions, degrees, and years of graduation, prefer to use the mechanico-chemical method of gingival displacement. Aluminum chloride is preferred by a higher percentage of respondents than other medicaments. There is no statistically significant relationship between the used medicament and the year, degree and institution of graduation. There is a low percentage of respondents reporting adverse systemic manifestations as a result of gingival displacement procedure. 7. 7. About half of respondents (50.9%) wet the retraction cord before removal from the gingival sulcus. 8. Acknowledgment

Operative Dentistry Modern Theory and Practice. 1st ed. St. Louis, Ishiyaku Euro America, Inc., 1985: 345-8.

3.

Baum L, Phillips R W, Lund M R. Textbook Of Operative Dentistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1995: 494-8.

3.

4.

Rosenstiel S F, Land M F, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 2nd ed. St.Louis, The C.V.Mosby Co., 1995.

4.

5.

Shillingburg H T, Hobo S, Whitsett L D. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 2nd ed. Chicago, Quintessence Publishing Co., 1981: 195-219.

5.

6.

6.

Malone W F P, Koth D L, Cavazos E, Kaiser D A, Morgano S M. Tylman's Theory And Practice Of Fixed Prosthodontics. 8th ed. St. Louis, Ishiyaku EuroAmerica Inc., 1989: 229-36.

Hoffman J M. Non-traumatic final impressions for fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont1992; 1(1): 61-4.

Johnston J F, Phillips R W, Dykema R W. Modern Practice in Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co.,1971: 183-6.

The authors are thankful to Dr. Nazeer Khan, Bio-Statistician, for his valuable help in the statistical analysis of data.

9.

References

Dimashkieh M R, Morgano S M. A procedure for making fixed prosthodontic impressions with the use of preformed crown shells. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(1): 95-6.

1.

Bensen B W, Bomberg T J, Hatch R A, Hoffman W. Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55(2): 175-81.

10. Schultz L C, Charbeneau G T, Doerr R E, Cartwright C B, Comstock F W, Kahler F W, Margeson R D, Hellman D L Snyder D T. Operative Dentistry. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1966.

2.

Marzouk M A, Simonton A L, Gross R D.

11. Nemetz E H, Seibly W. The use of


THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998

GINGIVAL TISSUE DISPLACEMENT IN KSA

79

chemical agents in gingival retraction. Gen Dent 1990; Mar-Apr: 104-8.

19. Land M F, Rosenstiel S F, Sandrik J L. Disturbance of the dentinal smear layer by acidic hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72(1): 4-7.

12. Shaw D H, Krejci R F. Gingival retraction preference of dentists in general practice. Quintessence Int 1986; 17(5): 277-80.

20. Rufenacht C R. Fundumentals of esthetics. Chicago, Quintessence Publishing Co., 1990: 289-309.

13. Donovan T E, Gandara B K, Nemetz H. Review and survey of medicaments used with gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53(4): 525-31.

14. Buchanan W T, Thayer K E. Systemic effects of epinephrine-impregnated retraction cord in fixed partial denture prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 1982; 104:482-4.

21. Bailey J H, Fischer D E. Procedural homeostasis and sulcular fluid control: A prerequisite in modern dentistry. J Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995; 7(4): 6575.

22. Cavallaro J. Electrosurgery and subgingival retraction in fixed prosthodontics. N Y State Dent J 1985;51(4):205-6.

15. Woody R D, Millar A, Staffanou R S. Review of the pH of hemostatic agents used in tissue displacement. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 70(2): 191-2.

23. American Dental Association-Council On Dental Therapeutics. Accepted Dental Therapeutics. 40th ed. Chicago. The American Dental Association, 1984.

16. Harrison J D. Effect of retraction materials on the gingival sulcus epithelium. J Prosthet Dent 1961; 11(3): 514-21.

24. Woycheshin F F. An evaluation of the drugs used for gingival retraction. J Prosthet Dent 1964;14(4):769-76.

17. Weir D J, Williams B H. Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51(3): 326-9.

25. Ruel J, Schuessler P J, Malament K, Mori D. Effect of retraction procedures on the periodontium in humans. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44(5):508-15.

18. Bowles W H, Tardy S J, Vahadi A. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res 1991; 70(11): 1447-9.

THE SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL VOLUME 10, NUMBER 2, MAY - AUGUST 1998