OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare proximal contact tightness (PCT) of MOD resin composite restorations placed with different matricing protocols. METHODS:Forty-five ivorine lower right first molars with standardized MOD cavities were equally divided into three groups according to the restoration protocol. Group 1: Sectional matrix (Standard matrix, Palodent, Dentsply) secured with a wedge (Premier Dental Products Co.) and separation ring (BiTine I, Palodent, Dentsply, York, PA, USA) was used to restore the mesial surface first and then removed and repeated for the distal surface. Group 2: Identical to group 1, but separation rings were placed at both the mesial and distal sides (BiTine I+II, Palodent) prior to restoration. Mesial surface was restored followed by distal. Group 3: Walser matrix (O-form, Dr. Walser Dental GmbH) was used. Following composite resin restoration, PCT was measured using the tooth pressure meter. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (p<0.05). RESULTS: PCT values for mesial contacts were 2.99 ± 0.47N for group 1, 4.57 ± 0.36N for group 2, and 3.03 ± 0.79N for group 3. For the distal contacts, the values were 4.46 ± 0.44N for group 1, 5.12 ± 0.13N for group 2, and 0.76 ± 0.77N for group 3. Significantly tighter contacts were obtained for mesial and distal contacts for group 2 compared to groups 1 and 3 (p<0.05). For groups 1 and 3, mesial contacts were not significantly different (p=0.993), while distal contacts for group 1 were significantly tighter (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, tighter contacts can be obtained when sectional matrices and separation rings are applied to both proximal surfaces prior to placement of the resin composite in MOD cavities.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare proximal contact tightness (PCT) of MOD resin composite restorations placed with different matricing protocols. METHODS: Forty-five ivorine lower right first molars with standardized MOD cavities were equally divided into three groups according to the restoration protocol. Group 1: Sectional matrix (Standard matrix, Palodent, Dentsply) secured with a wedge (Premier Dental Products Co.) and separation ring (BiTine I, Palodent, Dentsply, York, PA, USA) was used to restore the mesial surface first and then removed and repeated for the distal surface. Group 2: Identical to group 1, but separation rings were placed at both the mesial and distal sides (BiTine I+II, Palodent) prior to restoration. Mesial surface was restored followed by distal. Group 3: Walser matrix (O-form, Dr. Walser Dental GmbH) was used. Following composite resin restoration, PCT was measured using the tooth pressure meter. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and a Tukey post hoc test (p<0.05). RESULTS: PCT values for mesial contacts were 2.99 ± 0.47N for group 1, 4.57 ± 0.36N for group 2, and 3.03 ± 0.79N for group 3. For the distal contacts, the values were 4.46 ± 0.44N for group 1, 5.12 ± 0.13N for group 2, and 0.76 ± 0.77N for group 3. Significantly tighter contacts were obtained for mesial and distal contacts for group 2 compared to groups 1 and 3 (p<0.05). For groups 1 and 3, mesial contacts were not significantly different (p=0.993), while distal contacts for group 1 were significantly tighter (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, tighter contacts can be obtained when sectional matrices and separation rings are applied to both proximal surfaces prior to placement of the resin composite in MOD cavities.
Authors: Britta Hahn; Imme Haubitz; Ralf Krug; Gabriel Krastl; Sebastian Soliman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 4.614