Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction

New Technique for Wedge Selection in Direct Class II Restorations: A Pilot Study

Background: Performing an appropriate Class II direct restoration is a great challenge. The correct selection of the matrix system and the elements used for its stabilization will have a great impact on the result. The aim of this study is to show a new digital method for a predictable selection of the wedge and compare it with the conventional method. Methods: Sixty patients were randomly divided into two groups. In Group 0, the wedge was selected intraoperatively by visual examination, while in Group 1 the wedge was selected preoperatively through the measurement of the cervical embrasure on the bite-wing radiography. The number of wedges used, modifications to them, and tissue damage were registered, along with the quality of the proximal contact and the marginal adaptation. Results: Student's t-test revealed a statistical difference between the number of wedges used, which was higher in Group 0 (p < 0.05). Pearson Chi-square test showed that tissue damage was statistically higher in Group 0 (p < 0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference between groups in wedge modifications (p > 0.05). Group 1 revealed a higher frequency of satisfactory proximal contact and marginal adaptation (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This new technique reduces wedges waste and tissue damage and provides an adequate interproximal anatomy.

Proximal contact tightness of direct Class II composite resin restorations with various matrix systems: A systematic review

Background

Restoring an ideal proximal contact in direct Class II composite resin restorations is challenging due to polymerization shrinkage, absence of condensability of composite materials, thickness of matrix bands, and the use of various separation techniques, retainers, and bands.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the proximal contact tightness that is achieved by various matrix systems used to restore a direct Class II cavity with composite resin restoration.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines. The online search for the articles was done in electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The articles comparing different matrix systems for restoration were selected. Out of 146 articles, a total of 6 articles met the selection criteria and were included. The QUIN risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was used for assessing the study quality. The data extracted from full text articles selected for inclusion, using a standardized software (Office Excel 2013 Software, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

Results and Conclusion

Combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in tighter proximal contact compared to other matrix systems.

Class II composite restoration technique teaching: A randomised controlled crossover laboratory-based trial involving a novel ringless sectional matrix technique

INTRODUCTION

Objectives were to assess how different techniques (including a novel ringless sectional matrix approach) affect students' restorative outcomes, and their preferences for and preparedness to clinically implement new techniques with the aim of introducing appropriate techniques to the undergraduate curriculum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Students performed two class II composite restorations in plastic teeth using two sectional matrix techniques (separating ring vs. without [ringless]), and two composite restorative techniques (incremental vs. injection-moulded bulk-fill). Restorations were assessed on multiple parameters which were combined to rate them as "good" or not. Online surveys assessed students' preferences for and preparedness to clinically implement new techniques.

RESULTS

Contact area concavity (OR = 106, p < .001) and cervical marginal overhang (OR = 7.4, p < .001) were much more likely with the separating ring compared to the ringless sectional matrix technique. "Good" restorations were 29.5 times more likely when using ringless compared to separating ring techniques and 3.3 times more likely when using the injection-moulding bulk-fill compared to layered composite technique. A majority of students preferred the ringless to separating ring sectional matrix technique and the injection-moulding bulk-fill to layered composite technique. Large majorities felt prepared to implement the new techniques clinically with no or minimal guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

A classic sectional matrix technique with separating ring resulted in a much greater occurrence of contact area concavity and cervical marginal overhang than a novel ringless approach. When allied with student preferences and clinical preparedness, inclusion of the novel ringless approach in the undergraduate curriculum can be supported alongside bulk-fill injection-moulding techniques.

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments.

METHODS

72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18-40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Contact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022.

Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro

BACKGROUND

Poor contact tightness and contour in class II composite restorations are significant problems in clinical practice. They affect occlusal stability and periodontal health. The aim of this study was to evaluate proximal contact tightness and contour established after completing class II direct composite restorations using two pre-contoured matrix systems.

METHODS

Standardized mesio-occlusal cavities were prepared in twenty typodont lower right first permanent molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into two groups according to matrix system: Group 1, Sectional matrix system with a separation ring (Palodent V3); and Group 2, Circumferential matrix system with integrated tightener (Palodent 360). Contact tightness was evaluated using universal testing machine. Area, depth and curvature radius of proximal surface concavity in the restoration were evaluated using contact stylus profilometer. T-test was used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

Sectional matrix showed higher contact tightness than circumferential matrix system. The results of proximal surface concavity in the restoration showed significantly higher area and depth of concavity with lower radius of curvature in circumferential matrix compared to sectional matrix.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of separation ring with sectional matrix provides superior contact tightness compared to circumferential matrix. However, both matrix systems presented some deficiency regarding proximal contour of direct class II resin composite restoration.

Morphological assessment of the surface profile, mesiodistal diameter, and contact tightness of Class II composite restorations using three matrix systems: An in vitro study

Context

Sectional matrices and contact rings are valuable aids to establish proximal contact tightness in Class II composite restorations.

Aims

This study aims to evaluate the proximal contact area in Class II composite restorations using three matrix systems based on morphological analysis, mesiodistal (M-D) diameter and contact tightness.

Subjects and Methods

A standardized DO cavity was prepared in 30 plastic molar teeth. They were randomly divided into three groups (n = 10) and restored using Tetric N-Ceram composite material and three matrix systems - Saddle matrix, Palodent system, and Palodent Plus system. The quality of proximal contacts was assessed by measuring the maximum M-D diameter of the restored teeth using a digital caliper; the tightness of the proximal contact area using Unifloss and a standardized metal blade (30 μm). Qualitative assessment of contact morphology was done by visual means while quantitative assessment of contour was done using Medit scanner superimposing method and ExoCAD software.

Statistical Analysis Used

One-way ANOVA test was used to compare the mean M-D diameter (in mm) in the occlusal third, middle third, and the proximal contact area between the three groups. Chi-square test was used to compare the proximal contact area tightness using the passage of Unifloss. The buccolingual and occluso-gingival morphology was also compared among the three groups. The level of significance (P value) was set at P < 0.05.

Results

For the occlusal and middle third, significantly larger diameters were achieved with the Palodent Plus system than with the Saddle matrix. More flat contours were seen in the case of the Saddle matrix than in the case of the Palodent system while the Palodent Plus system exhibited a minimal depth of concavity as determined by three-dimensional imaging of the contact morphology.

Conclusions

Palodent Plus and Palodent matrix systems established superior contacts and contours than the Saddle matrix.

Effects of Adjacent Tooth Type and Occlusal Fatigue on Proximal Contact Force of Posterior Bulk Fill and Incremental Resin Composite Restoration

OBJECTIVES

To measure the proximal contact force in newtons (N) between incremental and bulk fill class II resin composite restorations and implant molar teeth or adjacent premolar teeth with simulated periodontal ligament.

METHODS

The model used was created with a typodont first molar tooth with two bilateral occlusal-proximal class II cavities, an adjacent tooth simulating an implanted molar tooth (Titamax CM, Neodent, Curtiba, PR, Brazil) and a premolar with simulated periodontal ligament. Two resin composite restorative techniques were used: Inc-Z350XT, (Filtek Z350, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) inserted incrementally and Bulk-OPUS, (Opus Bulk Fill APS, FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil) high viscosity bulk fill resin composite (n=10). As a control, a typodont having intact teeth without restorations was used. After the restorative procedure, each specimen was radiographed using a digital system (Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). The proximal contact force (N) was measured using dental floss with a microtensile machine (Microtensile ODEME, Luzerna, SC, Brazil). The specimens were then subjected to mechanical fatigue cycling to simulate 5 years of aging. All the parameters were measured after aging. The X-rays were blindly qualitatively analyzed by two operators to identify the loss of proximal contact. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing the initial contact force between restored and intact teeth. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey testing was performed for contact area data and for the contact force/contact area ratio. The proximal contact force data were analyzed using one-way repeated measurement ANOVA followed by Tukey testing (α=0.05). The X-ray proximal contact analyses were described by the frequency.

RESULTS

The initial proximal contact force was similar for intact and restored teeth. The contact force and contact area with the molar were significantly higher than with the premolar; however the contact force/contact area ratio was similar for all tested groups. The bulk fill technique showed a contact force similar to the incremental filling technique. Fatigue resulted in a significant reduction in the proximal contact force (p<0.001), irrespective of the region analyzed or restorative material used. The digital X-rays detected no alteration in the proximal contact after occlusal fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger contact area resulted in higher proximal contact force. Proximal contact force decreased with 5 years of simulated occlusal fatigue. The bulk fill technique showed a proximal contact force similar to that of the incremental filling technique.

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

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the operator’s ease, satisfaction, and comfort of using a circumferential matrix system and sectional matrix system on the proximal contact points and contours when restoring class II cavities in posterior teeth.

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was performed at the clinics in the Department of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University. A total of 105 dental students randomly participated in this study to restore a class II cavity with direct composite resin restoration. Operators' comfort and satisfaction were evaluated according to their assessment of the contact points they reproduced and the emergence profiles of restorations, using a circumferential matrix system and sectional matrix system.

Results: Out of 105 operators, 57 were satisfied with using circumferential matrix bands for most of their cases while 78 of the operators were satisfied with sectional matrix bands. There were no significant differences between operator satisfaction and the use of circumferential matrix band system (P > 0.05) and sectional matrix band system (P = 0.134) but there was a significant difference between difficulty levels in the use of both matrix band systems (P < 0.05; P = 0.000).

Conclusion: Circumferential and sectional matrix band systems showed no significant differences with operators' satisfaction during restoring class II cavities in posterior teeth but using a sectional matrix band system was considered easier than using a circumferential matrix band system.

Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth

Sectional matrix techniques offer more predictable solutions to achieving contact areas when placing direct interproximal posterior composites than circumferential matrix techniques, resulting in reduced reported complaints of food packing from patients. Despite this, a large majority of UK dentists and therapists don't currently use them. Sectional matrix systems are technique-sensitive to use, which can be a barrier to implementation for inexperienced users. The matrices can easily distort during their placement and stabilisation and when placing the restorative material. This can result in unwanted, clinically relevant problems in the resulting restorations, some of which may not be discernible once they have occurred. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of sectional matrices and the processes and techniques involved in their use, before discussing the potential for distortion at each step. It offers solutions to some of the commonly seen problems which will provide more predictable outcomes for those already using these techniques and encourage non-users to add them to their armamentarium.

Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of the restorative material and matrix system on proximal contact tightness and morphological characteristics of class II restorations in primary molars.

METHODS

Occluso-mesial cavities in second primary artificial molars were randomly restored using different materials (Filtek Z500 or Filtek Bulk Fill composites or high-viscosity glass ionomer cement Ketac Universal) and different matrix system (Tofflemire, AutoMatrix, matrix band with ring, contoured sectional matrix) (n = 12). Proximal contact tightness was measured using a custom-made device in an Instron 3345, and proximal surface morphology and marginal adaptation were scored after digital scanning. Two-way ANOVA, Tukey and Fischer's exact tests were performed (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Proximal contact tightness values were significantly influenced by the restorative material (P < 0.05), the matrix system (P < 0.001), and their interaction (P < 0.01). Both resin composites showed statistically differences in proximal shape according to the matrix used to restore and exhibited overhanging margins. Ketac Universal restorations showed similar morphology and gaps on the margins regardless of the matrix system.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, both composite restorations achieved tighter proximal contact than those restored with the high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. None of the matrix systems tested provided a convex seamless proximal morphology.

Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5-9 Years: An In Vivo Study

Aims and objectives

Proximal contacts and their interdigitation through occlusal contact with opposing teeth play a major role in children, for the eruption of permanent teeth into normal position. Determining the ideal matrix band system for proximal restorations helps in the construction of contacts and contours. This study is designed to determine the most suitable matrix band system for proximal restorations.

Materials and methods

A total of 96 proximal cavities were selected among patients aged 5–9 years and were equally divided into three groups. Group I: T-band, group II: ProMatrix, and group III: FenderMate. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were taken to evaluate carious lesions and restorations. Class II cavity was prepared and glass ionomer restorations were done using matrix systems. The efficacy of matrix bands was evaluated through the operator's questionnaire and postoperative radiographs.

Results

No statistical significance was found between the three matrix bands but FenderMate showed few clinical drawbacks that were statistically significant (p < 0.005).

Interpretation and conclusion

Matrix systems used in this study showed good results in restoring proximal contacts and contours. FenderMate showed few drawbacks when compared with the other two matrix systems. None of the matrix systems used in the present study were able to create 100% accurate proximal contacts and contours.

How to cite this article

Dindukurthi MK, Setty JV, Srinivasan I, et al. Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):70–74.

Use of Transparent Tips for Obtaining Tight Proximal Contacts in Direct Class II Composite Resin Restorations

This article describes the clinical technique of using the transparent plastic tips of the LM-Contact Former system for obtaining tight proximal contacts in direct Class II composite resin restorations using noncontoured circumferential matrix bands. With this technique, the composite resin is pressed with the tip, which adapts intimately to the walls of the proximal box. Moreover, the total working time is reduced by filling the cavity, which remains after removing the transparent tip, with a bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite.

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

The sectional matrix is the best way to achieve a strong contact point in Class II restorations with composite resin in the posterior dental sector. The pre-wedging is essential to get a separation between teeth which avoid the matrix deformation during its insertion. This article describes the clinical technique for restoring Class II cavities using a sectional matrix.

Mechanical Properties Comparing Composite Fiber Length to Amalgam

Photocure fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) with varying chopped quartz-fiber lengths were incorporated into a dental photocure zirconia-silicate particulate-filled composite (PFC) for mechanical test comparisons with a popular commercial spherical-particle amalgam. FRC lengths included 0.5-mm, 1.0 mm, 2.0 mm, and 3.0 mm all at a constant 28.2 volume percent. Four-point fully articulated fixtures were used according to American Standards Test Methods with sample dimensions of 2×2×50 mm³ across a 40 mm span to provide sufficient Euler flexural bending and prevent top-load compressive shear error. Mechanical properties for flexural strength, modulus, yield strength, resilience, work of fracture, critical strain energy release, critical stress intensity factor, and strain were obtained for comparison. Fiber length subsequently correlated with increasing all mechanical properties, p < 1.1×10^-5. Although the modulus was significantly statistically higher for amalgam than all composites, all FRCs and even the PFC had higher values than amalgam for all other mechanical properties. Because amalgams provide increased longevity during clinical use compared to the standard PFCs, modulus would appear to be a mechanical property that might sufficiently reduce margin interlaminar shear stress and strain-related microcracking that could reduce failure rates. Also, since FRCs were tested with all mechanical properties that statistically significantly increased over the PFC, new avenues for future development could be provided toward surpassing amalgam in clinical longevity.

In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this in vivo study was to radiographically evaluate the proximal contour of composite resin restorations performed using different matrix systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with premolars needing class II type resin composite restorations involving the marginal ridge were selected. Thirty premolars were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10 each) to receive restorations using different matrix systems: group 1: metal matrix coupled to a carrier matrix and wood wedge (G1-MMW); group 2: sectioned and precontoured metal matrix and elastic wedge (G2-SME); and group 3: a polyester strip and reflective wedge (G3-PMR). After the restorative procedure, bitewing radiographs were performed and analyzed by three calibrated professionals. The quality of the proximal contact and marginal adaptation of the proximal surfaces was classified as either correct or incorrect (undercontour/overcontour).

RESULTS

The Pearson Chi-square statistical test (α = 5%) revealed a statistically difference between frequencies of correct and incorrect restorations (α(2) = 6.787, p < 0.05). The group G2 SME produced a higher frequency of correct proximal contours (90%), while G1-MMW and G3-PMR had a ratio of 40% correct and 60% incorrect contours respectively.

CONCLUSION

None of the matrix systems was able to prevent the formation of incorrect proximal contours; however, the sectioned and precontoured metal matrix/elastic wedge configuration provided better results as compared to the other groups.

COMPARISON OF PROXIMAL IN VITRO TOOTH CONTACTS IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS WITH DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS AND CAVITY SIZES USING A NEW MEASUREMENT DEVICE

This study used a newly developed proximal contact strength (PCS) device to evaluate the tightness of proximal tooth contact for Class II cavity size restoration with different materials using an auxiliary separation ring system. A measurement device based on the equilibrium of forces acted on the clamp rod converts a pull-out force between interdental spaces on a force sensing resistor to express the PCS. This device was designed using dental floss as the test end and can be moved with constant speed during measurement through a bevel gear that transforms the rotation of motor shaft into linear movement of clamp rod. A manikin model was used with 60 artificial first molars in which an mesial occlusal (MO) preparation was ground. Samples were divided into six groups (each n = 10) for simulating amalgam and resin composite restoration with three different cavity sizes. The different cavities were defined using the ratio of the actual isthmus width to the intercuspal width (W) to 1/3, 2/3 and 1. The PCS value in each sample was measured after restoration. The result showed that the mean PCS value and standard deviation were 2283.1 ± 216.5 gf, 2419.1 ± 375 gf and 1737.6 ± 372.7 g for 1/3 W, 2/3 W and W cavities of the amalgam restoration, respectively. The corresponding PCS values were 1178.0 ± 230.4 gf, 1205.8 ± 249.1 gf and 1247.0 ± 157.5 gf for 1/3 W, 2/3 W and W cavities of the resin composite restoration. PCS values with amalgam restoration were larger than those for resin composite restorations under the same cavity size. Large cavity (W) PCS might be lost with amalgam restoration. No significant difference was found in resin composite restoration PCS among the different cavity sizes.