Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cavity Preparation Phase
2.2. Restoration Phase
- Group-IM: Ivory matrix (Hahnenkratt GmbH, Königsbach-Stein, Germany);
- Group-OM: Omni matrix (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA);
- Group-SM: Palodent Plus V3 sectional matrix (Dentsply, Charlette, NC, USA).
2.3. Measuring Contact Tightness
2.4. Radiographic Verification
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Iandolo, A. Modern Therapeutic strategies in endodontics and restorative dentistry. Medicina 2023, 59, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Azeem, R.A.; Sureshbabu, N.M. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review. J. Conserv. Dent. 2018, 21, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ilie, N.; Hicke, R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust. Dent. J. 2011, 56, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worthington, H.V.; Khangura, S.; Seal, K.; Mierzwinski-Urban, M.; Veitz-Keenan, A.; Sahrmann, P.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Davis, D.; Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z.; Rasines Alcaraz, M.G. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 8, 5620–5635. [Google Scholar]
- Dioguardi, M.; Alovisi, M.; Troiano, G.; Caponio, C.V.A.; Baldi, A.; Rocca, G.T.; Comba, A.; Lo Muzio, L.; Scotti, N. Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2021, 25, 6597–6621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szczesio-Wlodarczyk, A.; Fronczek, M.; Ranoszek-Soliwoda, K.; Sokolowski, J.; Bociong, K. Evaluation of selected artificial aging protocols for dental composites including fatigue and fracture tests. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaisarly, D.; Gezawi, M.E. Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: A literature review. Odontology 2016, 104, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brackett, M.G.; Contreras, S.; Contreras, R.; Brackett, W.W. Restoration of proximal contact in direct class II resin composites. Oper. Dent. 2006, 31, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clark, D. The seven deadly sins of traditional class II restorations. Dent. Today 2017, 36, 119–121. [Google Scholar]
- Sarrett, D.C. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampouropoulos, D.; Paximada, C.; Loukidis, M.; Kakaboura, A. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marlynda, A.A. Historical review of dental matrices. Malays. Dent. J. 2011, 33, 2–19. [Google Scholar]
- El-Badrawy, W.A.; Leung, B.W.; El-Mowafy, O.; Rubo, J.H.; Rubo, M.H. Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2003, 69, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gilmour, A.S.; James, T.; Bryant, S.; Gardner, A.; Stone, D.; Addy, L.D. An in vitro study on the use of circumferential matrix bands in the placement of class II amalgam restorations. Br. Dent. J. 2008, 205, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.D.; Browning, W.D.; Walton, K.S. Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 587–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, O. Sectional matrix solutions: The distorted truth. Br. Dent. J. 2021, 231, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de la Peña, V.A.; García, R.P.; García, R.P. Sectional matrix: Step-by-step directions for their clinical use. Br. Dent. J. 2016, 220, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, B.M.; Jeffrey, G.P. An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems. Gen. Dent. 2016, 64, 64–70. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, S.H.; Nakano, M.; Bando, E.; Shigemoto, S.; Kori, M. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J. Oral. Rehab. 2004, 31, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomans, B.A.; Opdam, N.J.; Roeters, F.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Burgersdijk, R.C. Comparison of proximal contacts of class 2 resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper. Dent. 2006, 31, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomans, B.A.; Roeters, F.J.; Opdam, N.J.; Kuijs, R.H. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of class II composite resin restorations. J. Dent. 2008, 36, 828–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhatia, H.P.; Sood, S.; Sharma, N.; Singh, A.; Rajagopal, V. Comparative evaluation of clinical efficiency and patient acceptability toward the use of circumferential matrix and sectional matrix for restoration of class 2 cavities in primary molars. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2021, 14, 748–751. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Chuang, S.F.; Su, K.C.; Wang, C.H.; Chang, C.H. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J. Dent. 2011, 39, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schropp, L.; Stavropoulos, A.; Spin-Neto, R. Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012, 23, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirsching, E.; Loomans, B.A.; Klaiber, B.; Dörfer, C.E. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations. J. Dent. 2011, 39, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saber, M.H.; Loomans, B.A.; El Zohairy, A.; Dörfer, C.E.; El-Badrawy, W. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, B.; Haubitz, I.; Krug, R.; Krastl, G.; Soliman, S. Influence of matrix type on marginal gap formation of deep class II bulk-fill composite restorations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4961–4970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dindukurthi, M.K.; Setty, J.V.; Srinivasan, I.; Melwani, A.M.; Manasa Hegde, K.; Radhakrishna, S. 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, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, I.A.; Filho, E.M.; Mariz, D.C.; Borges, A.H.; Tonetto, M.R.; Firoozmand, L.M.; Kuga, C.M.; De Jesus, R.R.; Bandéca, M.C. In vivo evaluation of proximal resin composite restorations performed using three different matrix systems. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2015, 16, 643–647. [Google Scholar]
- Loomans, B.A.; Opdam, N.J.; Roeters, F.J.; Huysmans, M.C. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation ring. Oper. Dent. 2012, 37, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaizer, M.R.; de Oliveira-Ogliari, A.; Cenci, M.S.; Opdam, N.J.; Moraes, R.R. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 41–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonzalez, M.A.G.; Khokhar, N.H.; Razak, A.A.A. Polishing of the composite resin restorations? Literature review. Ann. Dent. Univ. Malaya 2010, 17, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Shamy, H.; Sonbul, H.; Alturkestani, N.; Tashkandi, A.; Loomans, B.A.; Dörfer, C.; El-Badrawy, W. Proximal contact tightness of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations: An in vitro study. Dent. Mater. J. 2019, 38, 96–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, K.H.; Jung, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Chung, C.H.; Oh, S.H. Evaluation of tightness of proximal tooth contact in permanent dentition. J. Korean Acad. Prosthodont. 2008, 46, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaalan, O.O. Evaluation of matrix band systems for posterior proximal restorations among Egyptian dentists: A cross-sectional survey. Acta Stomatol. Croat. 2020, 54, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.Z.; Sadaf, D.E.; Gaikwad, R.N.; Arjumand, B. Comparison of two different matrix band systems in restoring two surface cavities in posterior teeth done by senior undergraduate students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Indian. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 29, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomans, B.A.; Opdam, N.J.; Roeters, F.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Huysmans, M.C. Restoration techniques and marginal overhang in class II composite resin restorations. J. Dent. 2009, 37, 712–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghu, R.; Srinivasan, R. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J. Conserv. Dent. 2011, 14, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vardimon, A.D.; Matsaev, E.; Lieberman, M.; Brosh, T. Tightness of dental contact points in spaced and non-spaced permanent dentitions. Eur. J. Orthod. 2001, 23, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, V.P.; Machado, J.B.; Zhang, Y.; Loomans, B.A.C.; Moraes, R.R. Laboratory methods to simulate the mechanical degradation of resin composite restorations. Dent. Mater. 2022, 38, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Matrix Type | Cavity Design | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class II (OM) | Class II (OD) | Class II (MOD) | p | ||
Mesial | Distal | Mesial | Mesial | ||
Palodent Plus (PM) | −228.257 (59.17) | −254.913 a (65.69) | −205.478 (23.65) | −204.647 a (27.89) | 0.078 |
OmniMatrix (OM) | −145.961 b (40.80) | −126.372 (56.83) | −133.256 (42.86) | −120.487 b (35.33) | 0.168 |
Ivory Matrix (IM) | −74.650 (19.18) | −69.004 (24.99) | −67.885 (21.85) | −64.753 (20.02) | 0.485 |
Control | 189.687 (15.48) | 202.411 (17.75) | 189.687 (15.48) | 202.411 (17.75) | 0.764 |
p | 0.003 * | 0.001 * | 0.001 * | 0.001 * |
Matrix Type | Cavity Design | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class II (OM) | Class II (OD) | Class II (MOD) | p | ||
Mesial | Distal | Mesial | Mesial | ||
Palodent Plus (PM) | 96.692 a,d (7.11) | 81.142 a (3.47) | 91.852 (8.25) | 84.423 (5.67) | 0.147 |
OmniMatrix (OM) | 102.041 b (6.20) | 102.748 (9.41) | 95.741 (8.81) | 88.892 b (9.96) | 0.195 |
Ivory Matrix (IM) | 111.913 c,d (25.06) | 110.948 (16.95) | 101.265 (15.08 | 92.046 c (11.17) | 0.236 |
Control | 109.355 (18.29) | 102.411 (15.81) | 109.355 (18.29) | 102.411 (15.81) | 0.891 |
p | 0.068 | 0.047 * | 0.095 | 0.247 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peskersoy, C.; Sener, M.; Gurses, O.B.; Erbil, E.; Turkun, M. Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8335. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188335
Peskersoy C, Sener M, Gurses OB, Erbil E, Turkun M. Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(18):8335. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188335
Chicago/Turabian StylePeskersoy, Cem, Mert Sener, Oguz Baris Gurses, Eda Erbil, and Murat Turkun. 2024. "Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations" Applied Sciences 14, no. 18: 8335. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188335
APA StylePeskersoy, C., Sener, M., Gurses, O. B., Erbil, E., & Turkun, M. (2024). Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations. Applied Sciences, 14(18), 8335. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188335