Efficacy of hemostasis and gingival retraction of Merocel strip compared with conventional retraction cord utilizing digital gypsum model: a randomized controlled trial.
{"title":"Efficacy of hemostasis and gingival retraction of Merocel strip compared with conventional retraction cord utilizing digital gypsum model: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Leen Dannan, Mawia Karkoutly, Jihad Abou Nassar","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-95612-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to ascertain whether the Merocel strips (MS) can achieve adequate hemostasis and effectively retract the gingiva compared to the aluminum chloride-impregnated knitted retraction cord (ACIKRC) utilizing a digital gypsum model. It was a randomized, double-blinded, split-mouth, active-controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of 122 abutments that were randomly divided into two groups. Group A: Gingival retraction was evaluated in 44 abutments. A single gypsum model was created by matching models before (t<sub>0</sub>) and after (t<sub>1</sub>) gingival retraction utilizing exocad software to record gingival horizontal displacement angles. Group B: Hemostatic efficacy was assessed in 78 abutments at t<sub>0</sub> and t<sub>1</sub>. Each group was further divided into two equal sub-groups. Sub-group I: ACIKRC Size 000. Sub-group II: MS. The mean value of gingival horizontal displacement angles in the MS (25.09 ± 15.53) group was higher than the ACIKRC (19.93 ± 10.95) group (p = 0.158). The mean value of gingival bleeding scores in the MS (0.02 ± 0.22) group was significantly lower than the ACIKRC (0.77 ± 0.71) group (p < 0.05) at t<sub>1</sub>. MS in 0.75 mm thickness without a temporary crown and ACIKC provided similar horizontal gingival retraction abilities. However, MS showed better bleeding control.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"10508"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11947143/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95612-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to ascertain whether the Merocel strips (MS) can achieve adequate hemostasis and effectively retract the gingiva compared to the aluminum chloride-impregnated knitted retraction cord (ACIKRC) utilizing a digital gypsum model. It was a randomized, double-blinded, split-mouth, active-controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of 122 abutments that were randomly divided into two groups. Group A: Gingival retraction was evaluated in 44 abutments. A single gypsum model was created by matching models before (t0) and after (t1) gingival retraction utilizing exocad software to record gingival horizontal displacement angles. Group B: Hemostatic efficacy was assessed in 78 abutments at t0 and t1. Each group was further divided into two equal sub-groups. Sub-group I: ACIKRC Size 000. Sub-group II: MS. The mean value of gingival horizontal displacement angles in the MS (25.09 ± 15.53) group was higher than the ACIKRC (19.93 ± 10.95) group (p = 0.158). The mean value of gingival bleeding scores in the MS (0.02 ± 0.22) group was significantly lower than the ACIKRC (0.77 ± 0.71) group (p < 0.05) at t1. MS in 0.75 mm thickness without a temporary crown and ACIKC provided similar horizontal gingival retraction abilities. However, MS showed better bleeding control.
期刊介绍：
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
