The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems

Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto, Alvaro Henrique Borges, Leily Macedo Firoozmand, Etevaldo Matos Maia Filho, Matheus Coelho Bandeca, Rudys Rodolfo De Jesus Tavarez, Isabella Azevedo Gomes, Debora Castelo Branco Rios Mariz, Carlos Milton Kuga

Citation Information : Tonetto MR, Borges AH, Firoozmand LM, Filho EM, Bandeca MC, Tavarez RR, Gomes IA, Mariz DC, Kuga CM. In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (8):643-647.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1735

Published Online: 01-08-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objective

The aim of this in vivo study was to radiographically evaluate the proximal contour of composite resin restorations performed using different matrix systems.

Materials and methods

Patients with premolars needing class II type resin composite restorations involving the marginal ridge were selected. Thirty premolars were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10 each) to receive restorations using different matrix systems: group 1: metal matrix coupled to a carrier matrix and wood wedge (G1-MMW); group 2: sectioned and precontoured metal matrix and elastic wedge (G2-SME); and group 3: a polyester strip and reflective wedge (G3-PMR). After the restorative procedure, bitewing radiographs were performed and analyzed by three calibrated professionals. The quality of the proximal contact and marginal adaptation of the proximal surfaces was classified as either correct or incorrect (undercontour/overcontour).

Results

The Pearson Chi-square statistical test (α = 5%) revealed a statistically difference between frequencies of correct and incorrect restorations (α2 = 6.787, p < 0.05). The group G2 SME produced a higher frequency of correct proximal contours (90%), while G1-MMW and G3-PMR had a ratio of 40% correct and 60% incorrect contours respectively.

Conclusion

None of the matrix systems was able to prevent the formation of incorrect proximal contours; however, the sectioned and precontoured metal matrix/elastic wedge configuration provided better results as compared to the other groups.

How to cite this article

Gomes IA, Filho EMM, Mariz DCBR, Borges AH, Tonetto MR, Firoozmand LM, Kuga CM, De Jesus RRT, Bandéca MC. In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):643-647.


PDF Share
  1. A report on a new condensable composite resin. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19(3):230-232.
  2. State-of-the-art techniques in operative dentistry: contemporary teaching of posterior composites in UK and Irish dental schools. Br Dent J 2010;209(3):129-136.
  3. Teaching of posterior composite resin restorations in undergraduate dental schools in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10(1):38-43.
  4. The amalgam-free dental school. J Dent 2004;32(5):371-377.
  5. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J Dent 2011;39(6):448-456.
  6. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation rings. Oper Dent 2012;37(1):21-27.
  7. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2011;36(3):304-310.
  8. Proximal contact tightness between directcomposite additions in the posterior dentition: an in vitro investigation. Oper Dent 2012;37(3):272-280.
  9. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35(4):454-462.
  10. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1980;51(8):445-449.
  11. Proximal restorations and periodontal status. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21(9):577-582.
  12. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(6):538-545.
  13. Effect of different modes of light curing and resin composites on microleakage of class II restorations—part II. Odontostomatol Trop 2009;32(126):29-37.
  14. The use of sectional matrix systems in class II direct composite restorations. Dent Today 2004;23(10):108-110.
  15. Comparison of proximal contacts of class II resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2006;31(6):688-693.
  16. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001;17(6):533-541.
  17. Dental restorations: a risk factor for periodontal attachment loss? J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(11):803-810.
  18. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):330-336.
  19. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35(1):37-43.
  20. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 2011;39(5):386-390.
  21. Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of class II esthetic direct restorations. Quintessence Int 2004;35(10):785-789.
  22. An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28(2):122-126.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.