Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars.

J Oral Sci

IDIBO Research Group, Nursing and Stomatology Department, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University.

Published: October 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to assess how different restorative materials and matrix systems affect the tightness of proximal contacts and the shape of class II restorations in primary molars.
  • Various materials (composites and glass ionomer cement) and matrix systems were tested on artificial molars, with findings indicating that both materials and matrices significantly influenced proximal contact tightness and morphology.
  • Results showed that composite restorations had tighter proximal contacts than glass ionomer cement, but none of the matrix systems successfully created a smooth, seamless proximal shape.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.21-0264DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

proximal contact
16
matrix system
12
contact tightness
12
restorations primary
8
restorative material
8
matrix
8
high-viscosity glass
8
glass ionomer
8
ionomer cement
8
ketac universal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!