OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate clinical changes in proximal contact strength inserting Class II composite resin restorations according to one of three randomly assigned protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one Class II restorations (MO/DO) were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were randomly assigned to one of three groups: one using a circumferential and two a sectional matrix system with separation rings. Proximal contacts were measured by one independent observer with a Tooth Pressure Meter immediately before treatment, and directly after finishing the restoration. RESULTS: Compared to the situation before treatment groups with a sectional matrix system resulted in a statistical significant stronger mean proximal contact strengths (p<0.05), whereas the use of a circumferential matrix system with hand-instrument resulted in a lower proximal contact strength (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Class II posterior composite resin restorations placed with a combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in a stronger proximal contact than when a circumferential matrix system was used.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate clinical changes in proximal contact strength inserting Class II composite resin restorations according to one of three randomly assigned protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one Class II restorations (MO/DO) were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were randomly assigned to one of three groups: one using a circumferential and two a sectional matrix system with separation rings. Proximal contacts were measured by one independent observer with a Tooth Pressure Meter immediately before treatment, and directly after finishing the restoration. RESULTS: Compared to the situation before treatment groups with a sectional matrix system resulted in a statistical significant stronger mean proximal contact strengths (p<0.05), whereas the use of a circumferential matrix system with hand-instrument resulted in a lower proximal contact strength (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Class II posterior composite resin restorations placed with a combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in a stronger proximal contact than when a circumferential matrix system was used.