Proximal contact tightness of class Ⅱ bulk-fill composite resin restorations: An &lt;i&gt;in vitro&lt;/i&gt; study

El-Shamy, Hassan; Sonbul, Helal; Alturkestani, Najlaa; Tashkandi, A; Loomans, Bas; Dörfer, Christof E.; El-Badrawy, Wafa

doi:10.4012/dmj.2017-279

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This trend was not affected by the resin composite used, therefore, the application technique, incremental or bulk-fill, may not be relevant. This finding is in agreement with a previous study on permanent teeth [5]. The similarity on tightness values achieved with both resin materials could be attributed to their similar consistency, as this parameter significantly influences the strength of the contact point [27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This retainer creates a tension that separates the matrix band from the adjacent tooth. These results are in line with previous reports on permanent molars, in which a contoured sectional matrix with a separation ring resulted in tighter proximal contacts in two-surface OM or OD class II cavities than circumferential matrix systems [5,13,24,25].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Particularly, proximal caries lesions are common in primary molars [3,4] and their late detection involves the need for restorative treatment [4]. In these restorations, to achieve an optimal contact area is essential to avoid tooth migration, food impaction, and the occurrence of secondary caries [5], the latter being the most common reason for clinical failure [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restoration of appropriate contact between two adjacent teeth is influenced by the matrix system selected and therefore, the strength of the contact point has been widely addressed in permanent dentition [5,13,[23][24][25]. Generally, contoured sectional matrix bands in combination with separation rings create tighter and more anatomic proximal contacts in permanent molars [5,24]. However, scant information is available regarding proximal contact tightness and morphology of approximal restorations in primary molars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the restorative material and matrix system on proximal contact tightness and morphological characteristics of class II restorations in primary molars. Methods: Occluso-mesial cavities in second primary artificial molars were randomly restored using different materials (Filtek Z500 or Filtek Bulk Fill composites or high-viscosity glass ionomer cement Ketac Universal) and different matrix system (Tofflemire, AutoMatrix, matrix band with ring, contoured sectional matrix) (n = 12). Proximal contact tightness was measured using a custom-made device in an Instron 3345, and proximal surface morphology and marginal adaptation were scored after digital scanning. Two-way ANOVA, Tukey and Fischer's exact tests were performed (P < 0.05). Results: Proximal contact tightness values were significantly influenced by the restorative material (P < 0.05), the matrix system (P < 0.001), and their interaction (P < 0.01). Both resin composites showed statistically differences in proximal shape according to the matrix used to restore and exhibited overhanging margins. Ketac Universal restorations showed similar morphology and gaps on the margins regardless of the matrix system. Conclusions: Overall, both composite restorations achieved tighter proximal contact than those restored with the high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. None of the matrix systems tested provided a convex seamless proximal morphology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tofflemire metal matrix holder was securely adjusted to encircle the prepared cavity of each tooth after fixing of each one in acrylic resin mold. 14 All samples were etched and the adhesive system (Futurabond M+, Voco GmbH, Germany) was applied according to manufacturer's instructions. Restoration of samples of C0 group was done incrementally using Grandio nanohybrid resin composite and polymerized according to manufacturer's instructions.…”

Section: Microleakage Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microtensile Bond Strength, Marginal Leakage, and Antibacterial Effect of Bulk Fill Resin Composite with Alkaline Fillers versus Incremental Nanohybrid Composite Resin

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aims to investigate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS), microleakage, and antibacterial effect of bulk fill resin composite with alkaline fillers (alkasite) (alkaline fillers such as barium aluminum silicate glass and ytterbium trifluoride) in comparison to incremental nanohybrid resin composite. Materials and Methods µTBS was evaluated by using 30 human mandibular molars. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups (C): nanohybrid resin composite (C0), self-cured alkasite (C1), and dual-cured alkasite (C2). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to the bulk thickness: 4 mm (T1) and 6 mm (T2). The occlusal enamel of teeth was removed and the resin composite was applied to a flat dentin surface. Then, teeth were sectioned into beams to be tested under tension. For microleakage testing, mesio-occlusal class II cavities were prepared in 15 molars and divided into three groups as mentioned before. Then, cavities were restored, thermocycled, immersed in a dye, sectioned mesiodistally, and then dye penetration was assessed. The antibacterial effect of both tested materials was evaluated using agar disc diffusion and broth dilution methods against chlorhexidine as a control positive group. Results There was no significant difference in µTBS between all tested groups. Bulk fill self-cured alkasite showed the lowest microleakage value followed by bulk fill dual-cured alkasite and incremental nanohybrid resin composite, respectively. Also, cervical microleakage showed significantly higher mean value than the occlusal one. The antibacterial effect of alkasite was less than chlorhexidine. Alkasite showed maximum broth clarity at lowest tested bacterial concentration. Conclusion Resin composite with alkaline fillers was characterized by good µTBS and marginal integrity with weak antibacterial effect.

show abstract

Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth

Bailey

2021

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sectional matrix techniques offer more predictable solutions to achieving contact areas when placing direct interproximal posterior composites than circumferential matrix techniques, resulting in reduced reported complaints of food packing from patients. Despite this, a large majority of UK dentists and therapists don't currently use them. Sectional matrix systems are technique-sensitive to use, which can be a barrier to implementation for inexperienced users. The matrices can easily distort during their placement and stabilisation and when placing the restorative material. This can result in unwanted, clinically relevant problems in the resulting restorations, some of which may not be discernible once they have occurred. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of sectional matrices and the processes and techniques involved in their use, before discussing the potential for distortion at each step. It offers solutions to some of the commonly seen problems which will provide more predictable outcomes for those already using these techniques and encourage non-users to add them to their armamentarium.

show abstract

Proximal contact tightness of class Ⅱ bulk-fill composite resin restorations: An <i>in vitro</i> study

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars

Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars

Microtensile Bond Strength, Marginal Leakage, and Antibacterial Effect of Bulk Fill Resin Composite with Alkaline Fillers versus Incremental Nanohybrid Composite Resin

Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About