Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Aim

To compare two matrix systems (circumferential and sectional) based on clinical efficiency and patient acceptability for placement of visible light cure composite resin restorative material in a Class II cavity in primary molars.

Materials and methods

Thirty children with bilateral Class II cavities of age-group 5–9 years were selected. A split-mouth comparative experimental study was conducted at Manav Rachna Dental College, India. Cavities were restored using either circumferential or sectional matrix band system. The child upon completion of the treatment filled the subject preference questionnaire. Time assessment was done for matrix system placement. Contact points were evaluated using dental floss as open or closed.

Results

Time required to place sectional matrices was more (125.30 ± 29.40) than required for circumferential matrices (117.20 ± 38.94). The sectional matrices group has more ideal contacts (23) (76.7%) than the circumferential matrices group (16) (53.3%). About 70% of the children pointed discomfort toward the sectional matrices. Children in this study accepted circumferential matrices to be more comfortable than the sectional matrices group.

Conclusion

The circumferential matrices group was more time efficient compared to the sectional matrices group. However, sectional matrices resulted in a greater number of restorations with ideal contacts. Based on the preference circumferential matrix band system has been found superior to sectional matrix band system.

Clinical significance

This study was conducted to find a better matrix system in case of pediatric patients. Circumferential matrices were found to be more superior with respect to preference and time efficiency and sectional matrices were preferred for ideal contacts.

How to cite this article

Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(6):748–751.

The Use of UnimatrixR Matrix System for Restoration of Interdental Contact Points – Case Report

Proper restoration of proximal contact points is a great challenge for any dentist. The special particularities related to an appropriate anatomical and functional restoration at this level are related first of all to the knowledge of the local topography, to the possibilities of dental isolation, the type and the extension of the loss of hard dental substance. Currently, multiple techniques and specific conformation systems are available, which can be adapted to each clinical situation, so that the outcome of the therapeutic maneuver is a success.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Postoperative Sensitivity with Warm and Room Temperature Composite

Physical properties of composite improve when it is preheated prior to polymerization. However, postoperative sensitivity may be considered a potential complication. A review of the literature revealed no reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of postoperative sensitivity when using preheated composite resin. The objective of the study was to determine if preheating composite leads to changes in postoperative sensitivity in a parallel RCT. In total, 120 eligible, consenting adults were recruited in private dental practice and randomized into 2 groups of 60 patients. One group had room temperature composite restorations placed and the second had composite preheated to 39°C. The primary outcome was sensitivity after 24 h by the visual analog scale (VAS), recorded blind by patients. Secondary outcomes were VAS scores recorded over a month. Blind statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the 24-h VAS score between groups and repeated-measures analysis of variance to assess the change over time. Potential confounders were tested using regression models. A total of 115 patients completed the trial: 57 in the heated composite group and 58 in the room temperature group. Analysis of 24-h VAS scores found no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups ( P = 0.162). Examining the potential confounders confirmed the nonsignificant difference between heated and room temperature groups on the 24-h VAS score, after controlling teeth type and preoperative pulp test (effect size = 0.173, P = 0.317). Analysis of the secondary outcomes found significant changes (within-subject effect) in VAS scores over the review period ( F statistic = 4.7, P = 0.002) but not a significant (between-subject effect) difference between heated and room temperature groups over time (effect size = 0.102, P = 0.197). There was a significant correlation between preoperative VAS score and postoperative VAS score ( P < 0.001). For the restorations in this study, there was no detectable difference in postoperative VAS score between preheated and room temperature composite. Postoperative sensitivity decreased throughout the first month. Postoperative sensitivity was correlated to preoperative sensitivity (ISRCTN 76727312). Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by clinicians when considering the advantages and disadvantages of preheated composite. The study found no evidence of any change in postoperative sensitivity when using preheated composite. Since preheated composite has superior physical properties, its use for routine care can be considered good practice.

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.

Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management

Clinical experience supports the notion that the restoration of MOD cavities may pose a challenge to the practitioner. Proper placement of precontoured matrices and commercial wedges help the clinician to establish an optimal emergence profile and sufficient contours. However, the presence of proximal concavities in premolars or molars can turn the reproduction of previous cervical architecture into an even more demanding task. Wedges with customized form or adequate design can precisely conform the matrix to the cavosurface area and prevent any gap formation. This article presents two different options that allow for successful and predictable reestablishing of anatomically correct contours and optimal proximal contacts in posterior teeth with proximal concavities.