Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords

Statement of problem. A aide spectrum of different gingival retraction cord s is used, while the relative clinical efficacy of these cords remains undo cumented. Purpose. This study aimed to determine whether clinicians were able to iden tify differences in clinical performance among 3 types of gingival retracti on cords. Methods and material. Dental students and faculty members ranked pairs or s eries of cords according to 6 criteria for clinical performance, with a bli nd experimental study design. Cords differed in consistency (knit ted or tw ined) and impregnation (8% dl-epinephrine HCl, 0.5 mg/in or 25% aluminum su lfate, 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 usi ng epinephrine impregnated gingival retraction cords compared with aluminum sulfate cords.