Clinical evaluation of sectional matrix versus circumferential matrix for reproduction of proximal contact by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: A randomized controlled trial

Shaalan, Omar Osama; Ibrahim, Shereen Hafez

doi:10.4103/jioh.jioh_303_20

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study revealed that the restorations placed with sectional matrix systems showed more optimum interproximal contacts than circumferential matrix system, which resulted in more tight and open proximal contacts. These results are in line with those reported in previous studies [14,32,44] . The superior contact tightness obtained by the sectional matrix systems could be attributed to two possible reasons: the use of a separation ring and the thickness of the matrix band.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Regaining proper proximal anatomy and contour is the key to the success of direct posterior resin composite restoration. The correlation between the type of matrix system and the reproduction of correct proximal contact has been reported in several studies [14,28,32] . However, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate clinically and radiographically two sectional matrix systems in comparison to one circumferential matrix system over a 12-month evaluation period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…A power analysis was designed to have adequate power to apply a statistical test of the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between tested groups regarding proximal contact tightness. By adopting an alpha level of (0.05) a beta level of (0.2) i.e., power = 80% and an effect size (W) of (0.800) calculated based on the results of a previous study [32], the predicted sample size (n) was found to be a total of 30 participants (i.e. 10 participants per group).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If dental floss was unable to pass at all or shredded, the interproximal contact was categorized as tight. If the dental floss was allowed to pass without resistance, the interproximal contact was considered optimum contact [32,36] .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Sectional versus Circumferential Matrix systems: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Abdelaziz,

Fahim,

Abdelwahed

2024

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate clinically and radiographically the performance of two sectional matrix systems (TOR VM 1.398 and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™) versus one circumferential matrix system (Tofflemire system) for 12 months.Materials and methods: 39 class II cavities were prepared. The teeth were equally divided into three groups (n=13) according to the type of applied matrix system: Group 1: TOR VM (TOR VM dental manufacturing company, Russia), Group 2: Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ (Garrison Dental Solutions, USA), Group 3: Tofflemire Matrix Retainer Universal (Produits Dentaires S.A., Switzerland). All teeth were restored using bulk-fill resin composite (X-tra fil, Voco, Germany). The restorations were evaluated clinically and radiographically at baseline, 6-, and 12-month. The proximal contacts were categorized following the FDI recommendations as optimum, tight, or open. The proximal overhangs were assessed using digital bitewing radiographs. The proximal overhangs were categorized as absent, positive, or negative. Data were analyzed using the chisquare test, followed by multiple z-tests with Bonferroni correction. Results:The Tofflemire matrix retainer group showed higher percentages of restorations with tight or open contacts in comparison to other groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The percentages of restorations free of overhangs in TOR VM and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ were found to be significantly higher than that of the Tofflemire matrix retainer group (p<0.001). Conclusions:The restorations placed with TOR VM and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ showed proximal contacts with optimum tightness and contour as compared to the circumferential matrix system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Sectional versus Circumferential Matrix systems: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Abdelaziz,

Fahim,

Abdelwahed

2024

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial

Abdelaziz,

Fathy,

Alaraby

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bulk-fill resin composites may suffer from recurrent caries around compound proximal restorations in posterior teeth, especially at the proximo-gingival interface.Over 12 months, will the bulk fill technique affect the caries recurrence rate at gingival margins when compared to the conventional incremental packing technique? How early will the first clinical, radiographical, and biochemical evidence of caries recurrence occur? Methods After randomization, in 30 patients with two compound (OM or OD) supragingival lesions, one tooth was restored using the bulk fill technique on one side (group 1) (n = 15). In contrast, the other tooth on the other side was restored utilizing the incremental layering technique (group 2) (n = 15). Both teeth received restorative material (X-tra fil, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). The FDI criteria were used to evaluate restorations. As for the periodontal assessment, the gingival index, plaque index, papillary bleeding scoring index and periodontal pocket depth were evaluated. The gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) specimens were gathered, and MMP-9 was extracted and quantitated by ELISA. A customized radiographic template was designed, and 3D printed digital bitewing radiographs were taken. Assessments were done clinically, radiographically and biochemically at baseline (1 week) and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Data was statistically analyzed. Results The null hypothesis was accepted clinically; no statistically significant differences appeared between bulk and incrementally filled posterior restorations. As for the radiographic assessment, the null hypothesis was accepted except for increased periodontal ligament width at 3 months. The null hypothesis for the biochemical evaluation was rejected as there were significant changes in levels of MMP-9 at different testing times. Conclusions 1. With similar results but less sensitivity and significant time saving, the bulk fill technique can be considered an efficient alternative to the incremental fill technique in restoring proximal cavities. 2. Early evidence of caries recurrence can be correlated to an increase in the MMP-9 level in gingival crevicular fluid, followed by an increase in radiographic periodontal ligament width measurement. Trial registration An ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Dentistry, October 6 University, (Approval No. RECO6U/5-2022). The study was registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry on 24/07/2023 with an identification number (PACTR202307573531455).

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of “Snowplow” technique versus Bulk-fill technique in restoration of class II cavities: A randomized clinical trial

Gomaa,

Mosallam,

Abou-Auf

et al. 2024

JIOH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study assessed the clinical performance of the “Snowplow” technique compared with the Bulk-fill technique in restoration of proximal cavities for 1 year using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Materials and Methods: The study was a 12-month, double-blinded, two parallel arms, randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 32 patients with proximal caries were separated into two groups (n = 16): group 1: “Snowplow” technique using co-cured X-tra base flowable Bulk-fill composite/X-tra Fil Bulk-fill composite, whereas group 2: Bulk-fill technique using X-tra Fil Bulk-fill composite. Modified USPHS criteria were employed to assess the restorations at baseline, after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The MedCalc software, version 19 for Windows was used to statistically analyze the collected data. Intergroup comparisons were carried out using the chi-squared test with a statistical significance level set at P ≤ 0.05 after Bonferroni correction. Results: The results suggested that there was no statistically significant difference found between “Snowplow” and Bulk-fill techniques at different time intervals in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic contour, surface texture, gross fracture, and secondary caries, where P = 0.150550. Conclusion: This study concluded that the clinical performance of the “Snowplow” technique and Bulk-fill technique was similar and clinically acceptable following a full year of clinical use. Bulk-fill and “Snowplow” techniques are highly recommended restorative techniques in proximal cavities.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of sectional matrix versus circumferential matrix for reproduction of proximal contact by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Sectional versus Circumferential Matrix systems: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Sectional versus Circumferential Matrix systems: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial

Clinical evaluation of “Snowplow” technique versus Bulk-fill technique in restoration of class II cavities: A randomized clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About