Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM A wide spectrum of different gingival retraction cords is used, while the relative clinical efficacy of these cords remains undocumented. PURPOSE This study aimed to determine whether clinicians were able to identify differences in clinical performance among 3 types of gingival retraction cords. METHODS AND MATERIAL Dental students and faculty members ranked pairs or series of cords according to 6 criteria for clinical performance, with a blind experimental study design. Cords differed in consistency (knitted or twined) and impregnation (8% dl-epinephrine HCl, 0.5 mg/in or 25% aluminum sulfate, 0.5 mg/in). RESULTS Knitted cords were ranked better than twined cords (P =.03). Cords containing epinephrine performed no better clinically than aluminum sulfate cords (P >.05). CONCLUSION Clinicians were unable to detect any clinical advantages of using epinephrine impregnated gingival retraction cords compared with aluminum sulfate cords.