journal article·2024-09-16Open access

Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness and Contact Area of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations

Cem Peskersoy, Mert Sener, Oguz Baris Gurses, Eda Erbil, Murat Turkun

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 18

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of the matrix system on proximal contact tightness (PCT) of posterior composite resin restorations. Standardized class II cavities on 180 first lower molar dentiform model teeth (Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) were prepared. Three groups were formed considering the matrix system: Group-IM: Ivory matrix (Hahnenkratt GmbH, Königsbach-Stein, Germany), Group-OM: Omni matrix (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA), and Group-PM: Palodent V3 sectional matrix (Dentsply, Charlotte, NC, USA). Teeth were restored with resin composite mounted in a manikin head to simulate the clinical environment. Proximal contact tightness (PCT) was measured using a custom-made portable dental pressure meter (PDPM), and the validation of the PCT results was performed with a histogram analysis acquired from bite-wing radiography. All data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and t-test in SPSS software (v.27.0) (p < 0.05). PM group showed statistically tighter contacts on both mesial (PCTm: 228.28 ± 59.17 N) and distal surfaces (PCTd: 254.91 ± 65.69 N) (p > 0.05). Mesial contacts were found to be significantly tighter than distal contacts among all (p < 0.05). According to the histogram results, only in the PM group, the difference between the mesial and distal areas is significant (p < 0.05). Histogram results confirmed that the tightest contact values were achieved in the PM group, followed by the OM and IM groups, respectively (p < 0.05). The use of sectional matrix systems and separation rings is more effective in creating tighter contact than conventional matrix systems. The use of anatomical wedges will help to create a more natural approximal contour and narrow contact area.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Temporomandibular Joint Disorders

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir 35040, Turkey

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir 10145, Turkey

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Izmir 35040, Turkey

Funding

Ege University Administration of Academical Research Projects Department (Ege-BAP)

References (40)

Show source-provided references
1. Modern Therapeutic strategies in endodontics and restorative dentistry10.3390/medicina59020333 ↗
2. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review
3. Resin composite restorative materials10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01296.x ↗
4. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth
5. Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1007/s00784-021-04187-x ↗
6. Szczesio-Wlodarczyk, A., Fronczek, M., Ranoszek-Soliwoda, K., Sokolowski, J., and Bociong, K. (2024). Evaluation of selected artificial aging protocols for dental composites including fatigue and fracture tests. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14166964 ↗
7. Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: A literature review10.1007/s10266-016-0264-3 ↗
8. Restoration of proximal contact in direct class II resin composites10.2341/04-198 ↗
9. The seven deadly sins of traditional class II restorations
10. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001 ↗
11. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations10.2341/09-272-L ↗
12. Historical review of dental matrices
13. Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques
14. An in vitro study on the use of circumferential matrix bands in the placement of class II amalgam restorations
15. Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring10.2341/09-338-T ↗
16. Sectional matrix solutions: The distorted truth10.1038/s41415-021-3608-5 ↗
17. Sectional matrix: Step-by-step directions for their clinical use10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.18 ↗
18. An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems
19. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01181.x ↗
20. Comparison of proximal contacts of class 2 resin composite restorations in vitro10.2341/05-133 ↗
21. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of class II composite resin restorations10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.001 ↗
22. 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 molars10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2060 ↗
23. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.001 ↗
24. Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02180.x ↗
25. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations10.1016/j.jdent.2011.03.001 ↗
26. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations10.2341/09-037L ↗
27. Influence of matrix type on marginal gap formation of deep class II bulk-fill composite restorations10.3390/ijerph19094961 ↗
28. Restoration of proximal contacts in decayed primary molars using three different matrix systems in children aged 5–9 years: An in vivo study10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1929 ↗
29. In vivo evaluation of proximal resin composite restorations performed using three different matrix systems10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1735 ↗
30. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation ring10.2341/10-286-L ↗
31. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.001 ↗
32. Polishing of the composite resin restorations? Literature review
33. Proximal contact tightness of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations: An in vitro study10.4012/dmj.2017-279 ↗
34. Evaluation of tightness of proximal tooth contact in permanent dentition10.4047/jkap.2008.46.6.553 ↗
35. Evaluation of matrix band systems for posterior proximal restorations among Egyptian dentists: A cross-sectional survey10.15644/asc54/4/6 ↗
36. 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 trial10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_26_17 ↗
37. Restoration techniques and marginal overhang in class II composite resin restorations10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.025 ↗
38. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations10.4103/0972-0707.87192 ↗
39. Tightness of dental contact points in spaced and non-spaced permanent dentitions10.1093/ejo/23.3.305 ↗
40. Laboratory methods to simulate the mechanical degradation of resin composite restorations10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.006 ↗