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

JOURNAL TITLE: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Author
1. Rudys Rodolfo De Jesus Tavarez
2. Leily Macedo Firoozmand
3. Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto
4. Matheus Coelho Bandeca
5. Isabella Azevedo Gomes
6. Debora Castelo Branco Rios Mariz
7. Carlos Milton Kuga
8. Alvaro Henrique Borges
9. Etevaldo Matos Maia Filho
ISSN
DOI
10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1735
Volume
16
Issue
8
Publishing Year
2015
Pages
5
Author Affiliations
    1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, UNESP Araraquara (FOAr), São Paulo, Brazil
    1. University of Cuiaba, Cuiaba, Brazil
    1. Department of Post-Graduation in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luis, Maranhao, Brazil
    1. Department of Postgraduate Dentistry, CEUMA University São Luis, Maranhão, Brazil
    1. Department of Master Program in Dentistry, CEUMA University - UniCEUMA, São Luis, Maranhao, Brazil
    1. Department of Postgraduation in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil
    1. Department of Postgraduate in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luis, MA, Brazil
    1. Department of Postgraduate in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luis, MA, Brazil
    1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Article keywords

    Abstract

    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 (α2 = 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.

    How to cite this article

    Gomes IA, Filho EMM, Mariz DCBR, Borges AH, Tonetto MR, Firoozmand LM, Kuga CM, De Jesus RRT, Bandéca MC. In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):643-647.

    © 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.   |   All Rights Reserved