Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status

BACKGROUND: The authors reviewed and compared gingival retraction techniques used for implants and teeth. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched the literature using article databases Ovid MEDLINE up to May 2008, PubMED and Google Scholar (advanced search) and the following search terms: gingival retraction, implant abutment, impressions, cement-retained implant restoration, impression coping, peri-implant tissue, emergence profile and tissue conditioning. RESULTS: The authors found insufficient evidence relating to gingival displacement techniques for impression making for implant dentistry. Gingival retraction techniques and materials are designed primarily for peridental applications; the authors considered their relevance to peri-implant applications and determined that further research and new product development are needed. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The use of injectable materials that form an expanding matrix to provide gingival retraction offers effective exposure of preparation finish lines and is suitable for conventional impression-making methods or computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing digital impressions in many situations. There are, however, limitations with any retraction technique, including injectable matrices, for situations in which clinicians place deep implants.