Class II Composite Restorations and Proximal Concavities: Clinical Implications and Management

Patras, Michael; Doukoudakis, S

doi:10.2341/11-224-t

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the advent of matrices, gingival overhangs, food lodgement, food impaction, and recurrent caries have declined. 3 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Bhatia¹,

Sood²,

Sharma³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bstract Aim To compare two matrix systems (circumferential and sectional) based on clinical efficiency and patient acceptability for placement of visible light cure composite resin restorative material in a Class II cavity in primary molars. Materials and methods Thirty children with bilateral Class II cavities of age-group 5–9 years were selected. A split-mouth comparative experimental study was conducted at Manav Rachna Dental College, India. Cavities were restored using either circumferential or sectional matrix band system. The child upon completion of the treatment filled the subject preference questionnaire. Time assessment was done for matrix system placement. Contact points were evaluated using dental floss as open or closed. Results Time required to place sectional matrices was more (125.30 ± 29.40) than required for circumferential matrices (117.20 ± 38.94). The sectional matrices group has more ideal contacts (23) (76.7%) than the circumferential matrices group (16) (53.3%). About 70% of the children pointed discomfort toward the sectional matrices. Children in this study accepted circumferential matrices to be more comfortable than the sectional matrices group. Conclusion The circumferential matrices group was more time efficient compared to the sectional matrices group. However, sectional matrices resulted in a greater number of restorations with ideal contacts. Based on the preference circumferential matrix band system has been found superior to sectional matrix band system. Clinical significance This study was conducted to find a better matrix system in case of pediatric patients. Circumferential matrices were found to be more superior with respect to preference and time efficiency and sectional matrices were preferred for ideal contacts. How to cite this article Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(6):748–751.

show abstract

“…With the advent of matrices, gingival overhangs, food lodgement, food impaction, and recurrent caries have declined. 3 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Bhatia¹,

Sood²,

Sharma³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De acordo com esta revisão de literatura a complicação mais associada às restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal foi o estabelecimento do ponto de contato com dispositivos 5,6,8,9,[11][12][13][14] , onde diversas técnicas são mencionadas na literatura com a finalidade de se obter o sucesso durante a confecção do contato proximal.…”

Section: Complicação Associada Relatada Conclusãounclassified

“…A escolha do material restaurador e técnica restauradora utilizada também foi citada como complicações por diversos estudos 5,15,17 . A confecção de contatos firmes não tem sido um problema com restaurações de amálgama devido às forças de condensação utilizadas com o uso desse material restaurador 14 . Porém, a obtenção de contatos firmes tem sido uma meta ardilosa com as restaurações em resina composta, uma vez que as forças de compactação na matriz são insuficientes para criar contatos.…”

Section: Complicação Associada Relatada Conclusãounclassified

Complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal

Oliveira¹,

Queiroz²,

Vieira³

et al. 2019

Arch Health Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introdução: Diversas complicações estão associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal levando a tratamentos restauradores insatisfatórios, que poderão acarretar o surgimento de diversas complicações, desde retenção alimentar até formação de bolsas periodontais com perda óssea. Objetivo: Avaliar na literatura quais as principais complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal. Metodologia: Realizou-se uma pesquisa de trabalhos nas seguintes bases de dados eletrônica: Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Biblioteca Eletrônica Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), PubMed e Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia (BBO), entre os anos de 2000 a 2018. Resultados: A busca das bases de dados eletrônicas recuperou 97 artigos. Após a leitura do título e resumo, leitura na íntegra e aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão foi selecionado um total de 14 estudos. Conclusão: Complicações estão associadas às diferentes etapas do tratamento restaurador interproximal, indo desde o difícil diagnóstico à verificação da adaptação marginal. O estabelecimento de ponto de contato com dispositivos foi a complicação mais encontrada.Descritores: Adaptação Marginal Dentária; Falha de Restauração Dentária; Restauração Dentária Permanente.ReferênciasFejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidds E. Dental caries: the disease and its clinical management. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.Hopcraft MS, Morgan MV. Pattern of dental caries experience on tooth surfaces in an adult population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;34(3):174–83.Skold UM. On caries prevalence and schoo-based fluoride programmes in Swedish adolescente. Swed Dent J Suppl. 2005;1(178):11-75.Scholtanus JD, Özcan M. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up. J Dent. 2014;42(11):1404-10.Melo P, Manarte P, Domingues J, Coelho S, Teixeira L. Técnica para obtenção do ponto de contacto em restaurações de classe II com compósito. Rev Fac Ciênc Sáude. 2005;2(1):63-72.Santos MJMC. A restorative approach for class ii resin composite restorations: a two-year follow-up. Oper Dent. 2015;40(1):19-24.Dörfer CE, von Bethlenfalvy ER, Staehle HJ, Pioch T. Factors influencing proximal dental contact strengths. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000;108(5):368-77.Loomans BAC, Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Brinkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJM. The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent. 2007;35(2):104-08.Cho SD; Browning WD, Walton KS. Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring. Oper Dent. 2010;35(5):587-91.Meneghel LL, Wang L, Lopes MB, Gonini Junior A. Interproximal space recovery using an orthodontic elastic separator before prosthetic restoration: a case report. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(1):79-82.Wirsching E, Loomans BAC, 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.Saber MH, El-Bradawy W, Loomans BAC, Ahamed DR, Dörfer CE, El Zohairy A. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations. Oper Dent, 2011;36(3):304-10.Costa TA, Raitz R, Belan LC, Matson MR. Análise do contorno da face proximal obtido em restaurações classe II de resina composta utilizando-se dois tipos diferentes de matrizes metálicas. Rev Odontol Univ São Paulo. 2009;21(1):31-7.Patras M, Doukoudakis S. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management. Oper Dent. 2013;38(2):119-24.Prakki A, Cilli R, Saad JOC; Rodrigues JR. Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of Class II esthetic direct restorations. Quintessence Int. 2004;35(10):785-89.Kim HS, Na HJ, Kim HJ, Kang DW, Oh SH. Evaluation of proximal contact strength by postural changes. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009;1(3):118-23.El-Shamy H, Saber M, Dörfer CE, El-Bradawy W, Loomans BAC. Influence of volumetric shrinkage and curing light intensity on proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations: in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2012;37(2):205-10.Teich ST, Joseph J, Sartori N, Heima M, Duarte S. Dental floss selection and its impact on evaluation of interproximal contacts in licensure exams. J Dent Educ, 2014;78(6):921-26.Moreira MA, Larentis NL, Arossi GA, Rodruigues ED, Bortoli FR, Haas MF. A radiografia interproximal é necessária para confirmar a adaptação clínica de restaurações proximais com resinas compostas em dentes posteriores? RFO UPF. 2015;20(1):69-74.

show abstract

“…However, extensive cavity preparation alter the stress distribution and cause high tensile stresses on the pulpal floor. Finally, tensile stress resulted from repetitive occlusal load may lead to cuspal failure 7 . In such cases, the mechanical properties of pulpotomy material, which is placed in the pulp chamber, may affect the fracture resistance of the tooth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of the Primary Second Molars Pulpotomized by Various Agents: An in-Vitro Study

Keleş

2020

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of various pulpotomy materials on the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary second molars. Materials and Methods: Hundred extracted primary second molars were randomly divided into five groups as follows: Control group (had no treatment), Zinc oxide-eugenol group (pulpotomized with zinc oxide eugenol), ProRoot MTA group (pulpotomized with ProRoot MTA), RetroMTA group (pulpotomized with RetroMTA), and Biodentine group (pulpotomized with Biodentine). The pulpotomized teeth were restored with compomer resin. All samples were then subjected to fracture resistance test using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's test. The level of significance was accepted at p<0.05. Results: Control group had the highest fracture resistance value (1191.57 ± 121.09 N) and Zinc oxide-eugenol group had the lowest fracture resistance value (510.87±135.00). There was statistically significant difference between fracture resistances of the groups (p<0.001). The difference between Zinc oxide-eugenol group and RetroMTA group; Zinc oxide-eugenol group and ProRoot MTA group; ProRoot MTA group and Biodentine group was not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, Biodentine group showed significantly higher fracture resistance as compared to Zinc oxide-eugenol group and RetroMTA group (p<0.05). Conclusions: The fracture resistance of primary second molars pulpotomized with ProRoot MTA and Biodentine was higher compared to the teeth pulpotomized with zinc oxide eugenol and RetroMTA.

show abstract

Class II Composite Restorations and Proximal Concavities: Clinical Implications and Management

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal

Fracture Resistance of the Primary Second Molars Pulpotomized by Various Agents: An in-Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About