Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: An in vitro comparative analysis

使用四种不同的牙科成形片系统评估II类修复体的解剖接触和外形:一项体外比较分析

阅读:1

Abstract

CONTEXT: The assessment of reestablishment of correct anatomic contour and proximal tightness with minimal gingival overhang of a class II restoration. AIM: This in vitro study evaluated and compared the gingival overhang, contact, and contour anatomy achieved by four matrix systems for class II restorations. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Standardized class II mesio-occlusal conservative cavities were prepared on two hundred typodont teeth and assigned into four groups (n = 50): Tofflemire, U Band system, Palodent V3 matrix system, and Walser Matrix system. The cavities were restored with composite and qualitatively analyzed for proximal contact tightness. The morphology of the overhang and contour was assessed using a Medit scanner and Mesh Labs by superimposition. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test of significance and Mann-Whiteny U-test for pair-wise comparison was used. RESULTS: The restorations showed statistically significant difference, with Walser matrix system and U Band demonstrating minimal overhang. No significant difference was observed for contact tightness among the groups (P = 0.109). Contours were assessed at the occlusal, middle, and cervical thirds. The Walser matrix system provided the best gingival contour (P = 0.000). The Palodent V3 matrix yielded the best contour at the middle (P = 0.002) and occlusal (P = 0.036) third with minimum deviation from optimal contour. CONCLUSIONS: The sectional precontoured matrix system Palodent V3 system recreated the best proximal contour and contact anatomy, while minimal overhang was generated by the Walser matrix.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。