Objectives: To investigate in-vitro differences in proximal contact strengths (PCS) of Class II composite resin restorations placed with different application techniques. Methods: 160 identical standard MO-preparations were made in artificial lower first molars (KAVO) using a Celay machine. Teeth were placed in a phantom head and jaw (KAVO) to simulate clinical conditions. In two groups (n=20), teeth were restored using Tofflemire + either standard matrix band no.1 X-thin (Produits Dentaire) (TS) or contoured matrix band Hawe Neos 1001C (TC). In the other six groups (n=20) two sectional matrix bands, ‘elastic' (Lite Flex, Danville) (E) and ‘dead-soft' (Standard Matrix, Dentsply) (D) were combined with one of three separation rings: Composi-Tight Gold (GDS) (CG), Palodent Bi-tine ring I (Dentsply) (BP), Contact Matrix (Danville) (CM). Matrix bands were secured with wooden wedges and all preparations were incrementally filled using Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray). In groups TS and TC, pressure was applied with a hand instrument on the contact during polymerisation of the first layer. After removal of the matrix, PCS was measured using a modified Tooth Pressure Meter (Dörfer et al., 2000). To find differences in PCS between groups and between homogeneous subgroups ANOVA and Tukey tests were used at p<0.05. Results: Groups TC (2.89±1.10N) and TS (3.42±1.34N) produced significant weaker PCS compared to all other groups (p<0.001). Comparing separation rings, without effect of matrix, CG (7.78±1.92N) > BP(6.74±2.35N) and CM (6.06±2.02N) (p<0.001). Comparing sectional matrix bands, without effect of rings, E (7.76±1.67N) > D (6.06±2.34N) (p<0.001). Conclusion: When placing Class II composite resin restorations use of sectional matrix systems and separation rings results in stronger proximal contacts than using traditional circumferential matrix systems.

Back to the Dental Materials: II - Adhesion-Other Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 83rd General Session (March 9-12, 2005)

Top Level Search