Search

The purpose of this topic review is to give a general overview of gingival retraction agents used during prosthodontic treatment, and the possible difficulties connected to them that may be faced by the dentist. Hemostatic agents are important for successful gingival retraction and in achieving hemostasis. However, these agents may show numerous negative effects on the prosthodontic treatment and oral tissues of which the practicing dentist must be aware, and which will be elucidated in this review. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for publications up to and including 2017. The following key words were used in different combinations: "hemostatic agent," "astringent," "astringency," "epinephrine," "ferric sulfate," "aluminum chloride," "hemorrhage control," "soft tissue," "hard dental tissue," "self-etch adhesive," "total-etch adhesive," "bond strength," "impression," "gypsum," "plaster cast," and "dental cast." In the last three decades the hemostatic agents used by practicing dentists have changed from epinephrine towards astringents, with AlCl3 and Fe2(SO4)3 now the most popular. All of the currently known hemostatic agents cause some local, temporary gingival tissue damage, but only epinephrine is known to elicit negative systemic effects. Studies concerning the influence of hemostatic agents on impression materials show highly contradictory results regarding the possible polymerization-inhibiting properties of hemostatic agents, probably due to the lack of standardization of methodology. Hemostatic agents seem to alter the dentinal surface properties making it more resistant to acid etching. Therefore the relatively low acidity of self-etch adhesives when compared to total-etch systems may not be strong enough to sufficiently etch a more resistant dentinal surface, and consequently may result in lower adhesive bond strengths.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether hemostatic agents (HA) show an effect on the retention strength (RS) of zirconia crowns luted to dentin abutments after cleaning with an air/water spray. Human molars (N = 60/n = 12) were prepared and zirconia crowns were milled. Prior to luting (Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Ultimate), molars were pretreated using HA: i. 25% AlCl3 (VSC), ii. 20% Fe2(SO4)3 (VS), iii. 15.5% Fe2(SO4)3 (AS), iv. 12.7% iron ion solution (ASX) and v. no pretreatment (control). Mastication simulation and pull-out tests were performed. Failure types were defined: cohesive 1—tooth root; cohesive 2—tooth crown; adhesive 1—cement on tooth; adhesive 2—cement on tooth and crown; mixed—adhesive/cohesive. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA, post-hoc Scheffé, Pearson's chi-square-test and Ciba–Geigy table (p = 0.05). No RS differences between the tested groups were observed (p = 0.200). ASX fractured more cohesive 2 than the control group. VSC showed more cohesive 2 than adhesive 1 fractures. VS showed more adhesive 2 than mixed fractures. AS showed more cohesive 2 than adhesive 1 and more adhesive 2 than mixed fractures. ASX showed predominantly cohesive 2 fractures. RS was not affected when HA were cleaned off by 30 s of air/water spray prior to luting. HA still seem to weaken the dentin abutment, making it prone to cohesive fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]