Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Composite Restoration | Research

Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro

Authors: Zeinab Omar Tolba, Ezzat Oraby, Possy Moustafa Abd El Aziz

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Poor contact tightness and contour in class II composite restorations are significant problems in clinical practice. They affect occlusal stability and periodontal health. The aim of this study was to evaluate proximal contact tightness and contour established after completing class II direct composite restorations using two pre-contoured matrix systems.

Methods

Standardized mesio-occlusal cavities were prepared in twenty typodont lower right first permanent molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into two groups according to matrix system: Group 1, Sectional matrix system with a separation ring (Palodent V3); and Group 2, Circumferential matrix system with integrated tightener (Palodent 360). Contact tightness was evaluated using universal testing machine. Area, depth and curvature radius of proximal surface concavity in the restoration were evaluated using contact stylus profilometer. T-test was used for comparison between groups.

Results

Sectional matrix showed higher contact tightness than circumferential matrix system. The results of proximal surface concavity in the restoration showed significantly higher area and depth of concavity with lower radius of curvature in circumferential matrix compared to sectional matrix.

Conclusions

The use of separation ring with sectional matrix provides superior contact tightness compared to circumferential matrix. However, both matrix systems presented some deficiency regarding proximal contour of direct class II resin composite restoration.
Literature
1.
Owens BM, Phebus JG. An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems. Gen Dent. 2016;64(5):64–70.PubMed
2.
Peumans M, Venuti P, Politano G, Van Meerbeek B. Effective protocol for daily high-quality direct posterior composite restorations. The interdental anatomy of the class-2 composite restoration. J Adhes Dent. 2021;23(1):21–34.PubMed
3.
Chuang SF, Su KC, Wang CH, Chang CH. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J Dent. 2011;39(6):448–56.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Gomes IA, Mariz DC, Borges AH, Tonetto MR, Firoozmand LM, Kuga CM, De Jesus RR, Bandéca MC. In vivo evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using three different Matrix Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16(8):643–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Saber MH, Loomans AC, Zohairy AE, Dörfer CE, El-Badrawy W. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35(1):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Saber M, El-Badrawy W, Loomans B, Ahmed D, DÓ§rfer C, El Zohairy A. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2011;36:304–10.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wirsching E, Loomans BA, Klaiber B, Dörfer CE. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent. 2011;39(5):386–90.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Deepak S, Nivedhitha MS. Proximal contact tightness between two different restorative materials–An in vitro study. J Adv Pharm Edu Res. 2017;7(2):153–6.
11.
El-Shamy H, Sonbul H, Alturkestani N, Tashkandi A, Loomans BA, Doerfer C, El-Badrawy W. Proximal contact tightness of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations: an in vitro study. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(1):96–100.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Brackett MG, Contreras S, Contreras R, Brackett WW. Restoration of proximal contact in direct class II resin composites. Oper Dent. 2006;31(1):155–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Nahar N, Bashar AK, Gafur MA, Jeorge DH. Sectional matrix system in reconstruction of proximal contact in class ii resin restoration. Update Dent Coll J. 2021;11(2):16–9.CrossRef
14.
Khan FR, Umer F, Rahman M. Comparison of proximal contact and contours of premolars restored with composite restoration using circumferential matrix band with and without separation ring: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2013;3(1):7–13.
15.
Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC, Dörfer CE. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent. 2006;34(4):292–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC. Comparison of proximal contacts of class II resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent. 2006;31(6):688–93.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kampouropoulos D, Paximada C, Loukidis M, Kakaboura A. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35(4):454–62.CrossRefPubMed
18.
De La Peña VA, García RP, García RP. Sectional matrix: step-by-step directions for their clinical use. Br Dent J. 2016;220(1):11–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bailey O, Shand B, Ellis I. Class II composite restoration technique teaching: a randomised controlled crossover laboratory-based trial involving a novel ringless sectional matrix technique. Eur J Dent Educ. 2022;00:1–11.
20.
Morin D. Introduction to classical mechanics: with problems and solutions. Cambridge University Press; 2008.
Metadata
Title
Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro
Authors
Zeinab Omar Tolba
Ezzat Oraby
Possy Moustafa Abd El Aziz
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03222-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Oral Health 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

A time-dependent subdistribution hazard model for major dental treatment events in cancer patients: a nationwide cohort study

Research

Impact of an Okinawa/Nordic based diet on endocrinological and periodontal conditions in individuals with type 2 diabetes. A randomized case–control study

Research

Oral cancer screening knowledge and practices among dental professionals at the University of Toronto

Research

Is there any difference based on sublingual varices frequency between hypertensive patients and healthy persons?

Research

Factors predicting different times for brushing teeth during the day: multilevel analyses

Research

Time to complete contemporary dental procedures – estimates from a cross-sectional survey of the dental team