Objectives: The effect of gingival retraction paste versus gingival retraction cord on periodontal tissue health is controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of gingival retraction paste versus gingival retraction cord on periodontal health by a systematic review and meta-analysis and to provide scientific guidelines for gingival retraction method selection in clinical work. Data Sources: The databases were systematically queried to collect studies exploring the effect of gingival retraction methods on periodontal tissue health in randomized controlled trials. Literature covering the period of January 1998 to April 2017 was extracted and the quality was assessed, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis with standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The result of meta-analysis revealed that gingival retraction paste exhibited a less deleterious effect on the periodontal tissue compared with the gingival retraction cord technique measured by probing depth, Gingival Bleeding Index, and bleeding on probing (P .05). However, no statistically significant differences were found in the measurements of Plaque Index, Gingival Index, and gingival recession between these two methods (P > .05). Conclusions: Gingival retraction paste can work better than the gingival retraction cord method in protecting periodontal tissue health. Keywords: gingival retraction cord, gingival retraction paste, meta-analysis, periodontal health, systematic review