The study aims to identify which retraction method offers optimal balance between tissue displacement, scan clarity, and patient comfort, particularly in the esthetic zone, while avoiding the use of CBCT. Results will guide clinicians in selecting the most effective and minimally invasive approach for digital impression workflows.

This prospective clinical study investigates the impact of various gingival retraction techniques on scan accuracy, gingival displacement, bleeding control, and finish line visibility during intraoral scanning of anterior teeth. A total of 32 systemically and periodontally healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups, each using a different retraction method:

1. Retraction cord with astringent (RCA; Control group): Knitted cord impregnated with aluminum chloride (Ultrapak + Viscostat Clear; Ultradent Inc.)
2. Cordless paste with astringent (EXP): Expasyl (Acteon PVT LTD)
3. Cordless paste without astringent (MF): Magic FoamCord (Coltene Whaledent AG)
4. Laser troughing (LT): Diode laser (iLase; Biolase Inc.)

Digital impressions were obtained before and after retraction using a Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner. The gingival displacement was measured digitally, and scan accuracy was analyzed via RMS error. Bleeding index, finish line visibility, and patient discomfort (VAS) were also recorded.

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Age 25-40 years
2. Maxillary premolars with normal anatomical size, contour, and position
3. Systemically healthy individuals
4. Healthy gingiva and periodontium around abutments (GI = 0)
5. Good oral hygiene (PI = 0)
6. Pocket depth ≤ 3 mm
7. Thick gingival biotype

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Smokers
2. Systemic conditions affecting periodontal status
3. Attachment loss, bleeding on probing, or plaque accumulation

patient's data obtained from study

12/1/2025-21/1/2026