Morphological assessment of the surface profile, mesiodistal diameter, and contact tightness of Class II composite restorations using three matrix systems: An in vitro study

Kumari, Suchitra; Raghu, Ramya; Shetty, Ashish; Rajasekhara, Subhashini; Padmini, SouparnikaDivakaran

doi:10.4103/jcd.jcd_403_22

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both PCT and proximal contours are two key factors that are related to the establishment of proximal surface [ 8 , 31 ]. Precontoured sectional matrix is considered as an ideal tool for resembling the anatomy and emergence profile for restoring the proximal contour [ 6 , 16 , 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Palodent Plus matrix system was utilized in all groups. This matrix system is designed to provide a standardized and anatomically shaped form for the restoration, which may contribute to creating a more consistent and well-shaped proximal surface compared to the carious tooth structure [ 31 , 32 ]. Furthermore, the use of wedges in conjunction with these matrices aids in achieving a proper contact form.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the use of wedges in conjunction with these matrices aids in achieving a proper contact form. Previous studies have shown that Palodent Plus and Palodent matrix systems demonstrated minimal differences in contour compared to other matrix systems [ 32 ]. Moreover, in this study we found that teeth restored with a sectional matrix system in conjunction with a contact forming instrument had a greater PCT, this was similar in the idea to previous techniques which were raised like the use of prefabricated inserts and curing tips to achieve better contact [ 11 , 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No signs of food bolus impaction or periodontal inflammation were addressed during the follow up period indicating tight proximal contacts. Food impaction, tooth migration, periodontal problems, and eventually carious lesions have all been linked to a lack of or very loose proximal contacts in many studies [ 1 , 32 ]. Additionally, acidic drink exposure [ 37 ] and occlusal contacts [ 38 ] can also have a significant influence on material hardness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Abbassy,

Elmahy,

Holiel

2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments. Methods 72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18–40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05). Results Contact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5. Conclusions The use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Abbassy,

Elmahy,

Holiel

2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…원래의 치아와 유사한 인접면 형태는 인접치와 정상적인 접촉 관계를 형성할 수 있고, 이는 치아 및 치주조직의 안정과도 연관이 있다 [9]. 적절한 인접면 형태는 수 복물의 장기간 유지에 필수적이며 [10], 이는 사용되는 매트릭 스 시스템에 따라 영향을 받는다 [11].…”

unclassified

Morphological Assessment of Proximal Restoration Depending on Different Matrix Systems in Primary Molars with a 3D Scanner: In Vitro Studies

Shin,

Lee,

Song

et al. 2023

J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the proximal surface contour, size of contact area, and volume difference before and after restoration in artificial teeth of primary molars during proximal composite resin restoration using different matrix systems. Four types of artificial teeth were restored with composite resin using sectional matrix systems-Palodent V3 Sectional Matrix System and myJunior Kitand a circumferential matrix system-Tofflemire Matrix System-and modeled threedimensionally for analysis. When sectional matrix systems were used, there was a higher probability of concave proximal surface contour and simultaneously greater contact area and volume. This is attributed to the dead soft properties of the matrix band used in sectional matrix systems, which can lead to deformation of the band and hence an excessive amount of resin applied around the contact point. Additionally, the rubber wedge in the sectional matrix system may not help the matrix band fit into the cavity. Therefore, based on the findings of this study, morphological aspects need to be carefully considered for proximal composite resin restoration of primary molars using sectional matrix systems.

show abstract

Comparative clinical evaluation of correct anatomic contour and tight contact in Class II direct composite restoration using two newer contact forming instruments

Patel,

Shah,

Dedania

et al. 2024

Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate proximal contact tightness and contours using two newer contact-forming systems in Class II composite restorations. Materials and Methods: After institutional ethical approval and Clinical Trials Registry-India registration, patients were chosen according to the inclusion-exclusion criteria with informed consent. A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A: LM Arte contact former (n = 30) and Group B: The design village (TDV) contact former (n = 30). Quadrant isolation was performed after the complete elimination of dental caries, preceded by the insertion of a matrix band and retainer with the proper wedging system. The LM Arte with the appropriate tip was selected for Group A, whereas the TDV contact former was selected for Group B based on the cavity size. Following the conversion of Class II cavities to Class I, nanohybrid resin composite restoration was done by cuspal layering. It was followed by finishing and polishing. E. B. Hencock criteria were used to evaluate gingival index, pocket depth, interproximal calculus, overhangs, food impaction, and contact integrity in both groups at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Statistical Methods: The data were analyzed using the Chi-Square test with SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 18.0, IBM. Results: A statistically significant reduction in gingival index score was observed in both groups 6 months and 1 year after the procedure. However, the values revealed in terms of gingival index (P < 0.05) and (P > 0.05) for pocket depth, interproximal calculus, overhangs, food impaction, and contact integrity in both groups for 6 months (P > 0.05) and (P > 0.05) after the procedure. Conclusion: Both the LM Arte and TDV contact-forming systems are effective in establishing perfect proximal contacts and contours. However, the LM Arte contact-forming system edges out the TDV contact-forming system.

show abstract

Morphological assessment of the surface profile, mesiodistal diameter, and contact tightness of Class II composite restorations using three matrix systems: An in vitro study

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Morphological Assessment of Proximal Restoration Depending on Different Matrix Systems in Primary Molars with a 3D Scanner: In Vitro Studies

Comparative clinical evaluation of correct anatomic contour and tight contact in Class II direct composite restoration using two newer contact forming instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About