Abstract: PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of gingival retraction paste versus gingival retraction cord in fixed prosthodontics on gingiva protection, tooth preparation, clarity of the impression and plaster model, and aptness of the prosthesis. METHODS: Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wangfang database were searched on November 15th 2012 for eligible studies. Hand-searching included references of the included studies and Chinese dental journals. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by 2 reviewers independently using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and data extraction was done by the 2 reviewers. Meta analysis was performed with Revman 5.1 software. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials, involving 1153 participants, were included. All of them had moderate risk of bias. Meta analysis revealed that gingival retraction paste had better effect on gingival health [RR=1.05, 95%CI (1.00, 1.11), P=0.04], tooth preparation [RR=1.17, 95%CI (1.07, 1.28), P=0.0008] and clarity of the impression and plaster model [RR=1.08, 95%CI (1.03, 1.13), P=0.0009] than gingival retraction cord, and the aptness of the prosthesis was as good as the cord [RR=1.07, 95%CI (0.96, 1.19), P=0.21]. CONCLUSIONS: The gingival retraction paste has better effect on gingival health, tooth preparation and clarity of the impression and plaster model, while the aptness of the prosthesis is as good as the cord and can be considered as a good candidate of the gingival retraction cord, but more randomized controlled trials are needed.

Key words: Fixed prosthodontics, Gingival retraction, Periodontal health, Dental impression, Systematic review