Gingival Retraction Methods Used In Different Gingival Biotypes As Classified By Anon Ross And Seibert And Lindhe Classification

To access the prevalence of the gingival biotype as classified by Anon Ross and Seibert and Lindhe classification and to evaluate its correlations with the mode of mechanical retraction employed. 200 case sheets of patients who visited SDC with a requirement of fabrication of a fixed dental prosthesis were obtained from DIAS and evaluated. The gingival biotype of the patients were assessed and classified under the Anon Ross and Siebert and Lindhe classification and the mode of retraction used for the case was also noted. Results obtained were tabulated using an excel sheet. Descriptive statistics was performed to assess the prevalence and correlation was assessed using chi square test.The prevalence of “ Scalloped and thin “ according to Anon and Ross and “ thin “ according to Seibert and Lindhe were 55.5% and 54.1% respectively. Similarly for “flat and thick” and “thick” the prevalence was 44% and 45% of total sample size. There is a statistically significant association between the mechanical retraction method used in both the gingival biotypes. Gingival health is of paramount importance. The mechanical retraction method used should be in accordance with the gingival biotypes to prevent unwarranted trauma to the gingiva. This necessitates the need for a protocol to use a particular retraction method based on gingival biotypes.