Retraction Paste vs Retraction Cord

9/18/25

By:

Jerry Ragle, CDT

Content provided by ChatGPT

This articale researches the comparisons of retraction paste vs cord. Question was asked of ChatGTP and these were the responses.

Retraction paste can work, but it usually does not provide the same level of gingival displacement and hemostasis as retraction cord in all cases.

Here’s a comparison:

Retraction Paste (e.g., Expasyl, Traxodent, etc.)

Pros:
Easy and fast to apply.
Less traumatic to tissue.
Good for cases with shallow sulci and minimal bleeding.
Comfortable for the patient.
Cons:
Provides less lateral displacement than cord.
Hemostasis depends on the formulation (often less effective if tissue is bleeding heavily).
May wash out if sulcus is deep or tissue is inflamed.

Retraction Cord

Pros:
Provides reliable lateral displacement of gingiva.
Better control of sulcus fluid and bleeding when used with hemostatic agents.
Gold standard for subgingival margins and accurate impressions.
Cons:
More technique-sensitive and time-consuming.
Can cause tissue trauma if done aggressively.
Less comfortable for patients.

Clinical takeaway:

Retraction paste works well for shallow margins, healthy tissue, and digital impressions.
Packing cord (single or double cord technique) is still preferred for deeper subgingival margins, heavy bleeding, or when maximum exposure is critical (like for crown and bridge impressions).

👉 Many clinicians now use a hybrid approach: paste for initial displacement/hemostasis and cord for final exposure when needed.

Here’s a quick comparison chart for retraction paste vs. cord depending on the case:

Retraction Paste vs Retraction Cord

📊 Gingival Retraction: Paste vs. Cord

🔍 Retraction Pastes / Cordless Systems

📋 Key Studies & Numbers

📊 Performance Comparison: Specific Products & Displacement

📚 Vertical Displacement Data: Cords vs Paste

🦷 Target Vertical Displacement by Margin Depth

🦷 Gingival Retraction Decision Tree

🦷 Gingival Retraction Decision Tree (PDF)