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

Khan, Farhan Raza; Umer, Fahad; Rahman, M. F.

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1068

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tightness of the interproximal contact can be evaluated objectively in clinical trials using devices measuring the contact strength, but such devices are not commercially available [40] . The subjective evaluation, according to FDI recommendations, can be done with metal blades or dental floss, with the latter being the most commonly used method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, waxed dental floss was used in this study [35,41,42] . Bitewing radiographs were used because they are the most valid and common tool for the radiographic evaluation of restorations [40,43] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Radiographs were analyzed by two observers who were blinded with regards to bands used in the study. Radiographic evaluation was carried out according to criteria by Wilson et al, 7 Gomes et al, 8 and Khan et al 3 …”

Section: Aterials and M Ethods ( F Ig 1 )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideal proximal contact prevents food impaction and thus contributes to underlying periodontal health, 3 by providing food spillway and facilitating hygienic cleaning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study

Dindukurthi¹,

Setty²,

Srinivasan³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bstract Aims and objectives Proximal contacts and their interdigitation through occlusal contact with opposing teeth play a major role in children, for the eruption of permanent teeth into normal position. Determining the ideal matrix band system for proximal restorations helps in the construction of contacts and contours. This study is designed to determine the most suitable matrix band system for proximal restorations. Materials and methods A total of 96 proximal cavities were selected among patients aged 5–9 years and were equally divided into three groups. Group I: T-band, group II: ProMatrix, and group III: FenderMate. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were taken to evaluate carious lesions and restorations. Class II cavity was prepared and glass ionomer restorations were done using matrix systems. The efficacy of matrix bands was evaluated through the operator's questionnaire and postoperative radiographs. Results No statistical significance was found between the three matrix bands but FenderMate showed few clinical drawbacks that were statistically significant ( p < 0.005). Interpretation and conclusion Matrix systems used in this study showed good results in restoring proximal contacts and contours. FenderMate showed few drawbacks when compared with the other two matrix systems. None of the matrix systems used in the present study were able to create 100% accurate proximal contacts and contours. How to cite this article Dindukurthi MK, Setty JV, Srinivasan I, et al. Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):70–74.

show abstract

“…Inability of dentist to develop the physiologic contact area and contours in the proximal restorations results in the failure of restorative work. 4 Third molar is the most commonly impacted tooth in the human dentition. Completely Impacted or partially impacted third molar can result in pain, damage to the other teeth, malocclusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement in Maxillary Third Molar Resulting in Open Proximal Contact Between First & Second Molar: A Case report

Sheikh¹,

Khan²

2018

J Pak Dent Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proximal contact area is the part of the tooth which touches the adjacent tooth in the same arch. Untreated open proximal contact between posterior teeth is very cumbersome for the patient as it allows food stagnation between teeth leading to caries and crestal bone loss. Dental caries and periodontal disease are the common cause of open contacts between posterior teeth. This report demonstrates an unusual cause of bilateral open proximal contacts i.e. movement in the maxillary third molars. Third molars sometimes exert unwanted force at the radicular part of the adjacent second molars which result in an orthodontic tipping movement of the second molar in the distal direction. This leads to creation of an open contact distal to the first molar. The present case was managed with the extraction of the third molars followed by direct amalgam restorations in the first and second molars. At one-year follow up, the patient remained asymptomatic.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Aim:To compare the proximal contacts and contours in class II composite restorations in premolars achieved with Automatrix band with separation ring vs Automatrix band alone.

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 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

Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study

Movement in Maxillary Third Molar Resulting in Open Proximal Contact Between First & Second Molar: A Case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About