Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of two gingival retraction systems. Materials and method: This in vivo experimental study was carried out on 20 patients in need of tooth supported crown and bridge. Two different gingival retraction systems were used to evaluate the amount of gingival displacement. Patients were marked as A, B, C and so on and for each patient three impressions were made and named as I, II, III. Group I- Control (baseline impression), Group IIImpression with knitted retraction cord #00 size ultrapak group, Group III- Impression with 3M ESPE retraction capsule (in millimeter). The abutment tooth was prepared for full coverage crown with a subgingival finish line. Baseline impression was made on the first day of tooth preparation without retraction. On day 8 and day 15 impressions were made with vinyl polysiloxane regular body after displacement with anyone of 2 displacement agents. A total of three impressions were made for each abutment tooth. Impressions were poured immediately with die stone. A 3 mm thick buccolingual slice was obtained from the cast of the prepared tooth region with the die cutter. The gingival retraction was measured from the tooth to the crest of gingiva in a horizontal plane. These samples were viewed under a Profile projector (MEERA METZER PROFILE PROJECTOR MODEL-MET7-B01RD) at 10x magnification and gingival retraction was measured from the tooth surface to the crest of gingival. Datas obtained were then send for statistical analysis. Results: There was a highest mean value for group III (3M ESPE retraction capsule) -1.1879±0.2490 mmin comparison to group I, group II. On performing the student independent t test, it was found that P is <0.05 that is statistically significant. Conclusion: Impression made after retraction of gingiva with 3M ESPE retraction capsule was effective in respect to gingival displacement.