INFLUENCE OF METAL VERSUS TRANSPARENT MATRICES ON PROXIMAL CONTACT TIGHTNESS OF CLASS II BULK-FILL COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 43, Volume 64, Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), July 2018, Page 2819-2825 PDF (668.05 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.79172 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
| Hassan El-Shamy | ||||
| Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Nahda University, Faculty of Dentistry, Conservative Dentistry Department, Beni Suef, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: This study investigated the effect of metal versus transparent matrix systems on proximal contact tightness (PCT) of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations. Methods: 80 Ivorine teeth with standardized MO cavity preparations were randomly divided into 4 equal groups (n=20). Group1; sectional metal matrix, group2; pre-contoured circumferential metal matrix in a Tofflemire retainer, group3; conventional metal matrix in a Tofflemire retainer, and group4; Blue Cure-Thru transparent contoured matrix band. All matrices were combined with a separation ring and secured with wooden wedges. Cavity preparations were restored with bulk-fill composite resin; SonicFill 2 with the corresponding bonding system following manufacturer’s instructions. Composite material cured for 20s using Elipar S10 light curing unit. Teeth were restored in a clinically relevant situation using KaVo manikin head. After matrix and wedge removal, proximal contact tightness was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter. Means were calculated and data were statistically-analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<.05). Results: Means and standard deviation for proximal contact measurements were: 7.62 (.52), 4.01 (.74), 4.13 (.4) and 2.74 (.37) for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. There was a statistical significant difference among all groups except between group2 and 3. Conclusions: Under the conditions of this test, it can be concluded that: 1. Proper proximal contact tightness for bulk-fill posterior composite restorations could be produced by sectional metal matrix rather than transparent matrix. 2. Pre-contoured circumferential metal matrix produced the same proximal contact tightness as conventional metal matrix when both used with a separation ring. Clinical Relevance Transparent matrices couldn’t be recommended for bulk-fill posterior composite restorations rather than metal matrices | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Bulk-fill Composite; Proximal Contact Tightness; Dental Matrices; Tooth Pressure Meter | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 350 PDF Download: 618 |
||||
