Literature DB >> 17555170

A clinical study on interdental separation techniques.

Bas A Loomans1, N J M Opdam, E M Bronkhorst, F J M Roeters, C E Dörfer.   

Abstract

The effect of interdental separation of a special separation ring and wooden wedge was investigated. In a split-mouth design, 27 patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (W or S). In 11 patients, an interdental wooden wedge (Hawe-Neos) was placed (group W), and in 16 patients, a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold) was placed at the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6. Simultaneously, in both groups, a wooden wedge, combined with a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold), was placed on the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6 (reference group W+S). To measure proximal contact tightness, frictional forces were recorded at the removal of a 0.05 mm thick metal matrix band inserted between adjacent teeth. Contact tightness was measured at contacts 4 and 5 and at 5 and 6 in the third and fourth quadrant using the Tooth Pressure Meter prior to applying separation devices (TO) five minutes after application (T1) and five minutes after removal of the devices (T2). The effect of separation was determined by calculating the differences between contact tightness before application and contact tightness with the devices in situ (T1-T0). Interdental recovery was calculated by the difference in contact tightness before application and after removal of the devices (T2-T0). To assess the presence of statistically significant differences between these measurement times, paired t-tests were applied. With each patient, either a comparison between W and W+S or S and W+S was made. For both W versus W+S and S versus W+S, paired t-tests were applied to compare differences (T1-T0 and T2-T0) between the separation devices. Within a patient, groups W and S could not be compared, therefore, to compare separation achieved between these two devices, unpaired t-tests were used. The increase in contact tightness measured at contact 4 and 5 for group W (0.98 +/- 0.26 N) was statistically significantly less compared to the increase in group S (5.48 +/- 0.88 N) (p < 0.001) or group W+S (4.62 +/- 0.68 N) (p = 0.02). No significant differences were found between groups S and W+S (p = 0.77). For all groups, five minutes after removal of the devices, the contact tightness at contact 4 and 5 and at contact 5 and 6 were still significantly weaker compared to the tightness at baseline (p < 0.02). When separation is required for restorative procedures, such as at placement of a Class II resin composite restoration, special separation rings may be more useful than wooden wedges.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17555170     DOI: 10.2341/06-73

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  4 in total

Review 1.  Sectional matrix: Step-by-step directions for their clinical use.

Authors:  V Alonso de la Peña; R Pernas García; R Pérez García
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations.

Authors:  Ramya Raghu; Raghu Srinivasan
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2011-10

3.  Evaluation of Matrix Band Systems for Posterior Proximal Restorations among Egyptian Dentists: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Omar Osama Shaalan
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2020-12

4.  Operators' Ease and Satisfaction in Restoring Class II Cavities With Sectional Matrix Versus Circumferential Matrix System at Qassim University Dental Clinics.

Authors:  Mohammed Almushayti; Bilal Arjumand
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-05
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.