Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo
Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdent.2011.03.001
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Doerfer, Christof E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wirsching, Eva;Loomans, Bas A. C.;Doerfer, Christof E.
目的：探讨空腔制备（MO/DO/MOD）和基质体系类型对直接后牙复合修复近端接触紧密度的影响。材料与方法：85例需要二面或三面II类直接复合修复的患者随机分为两个治疗组。组1采用分段基质系统联合分离环（Palodent）；第二组采用环向基质系统联合托弗勒迈尔（Tofflemire）固位器。治疗前和修复完成后直接记录近端接触紧密度。结果：对于两面腔，使用分离环与使用环周（MO: -1.08 +/- 1.04 N; DO: -0.22 +/- 0.87 N）相比，近端接触在中端和远端都更紧密（MO: 2.51 +/- 0.81 N; DO: 2.82 +/- 1.14 N） （p = 0.01）。对于三面（MOD）空腔，近端和远端没有统计学上的差异，也没有使用基质系统的影响。所有空腔（MO、DO和MOD）均未记录到空腔设计（近端/远端）的统计学显著影响。结论：在两表面II类腔中使用截面基质系统比使用周向基质系统导致近端接触更紧密。对于三曲面，不同基体体系的接触紧密性无统计学差异。空腔的位置（近端或远端）对获得的近端接触紧密度没有统计学上的显著影响。(C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
Objectives: To investigate the influence of cavity preparation (MO/DO/MOD) and type of matrix system on proximal contact tightness of direct posterior composite restorations.Materials and methods: 85 patients in need of a two-or three surface Class II direct composite restoration were randomly divided into two treatment groups. Group 1 was treated with a sectional matrix system combined with a separation ring (Palodent); Group 2 was treated with a circumferential matrix system in combination with a retainer (Tofflemire). Proximal contact tightness was recorded before treatment and directly after finishing the restoration.Results: For the two-surface cavities use of the separation ring resulted in a statistically significantly tighter proximal contacts at both the mesial and distal site (MO: 2.51 +/- 0.81 N; DO: 2.82 +/- 1.14 N) compared to the use of the circumferential (MO: -1.08 +/- 1.04 N; DO: -0.22 +/- 0.87 N) (p = 0.01). Regarding the three-surface (MOD) cavities no statistically significant differences were found between the mesial and distal site, nor was there an effect of the used matrix system. No statistically significant influence of cavity design (mesially/distally) was recorded for all cavities (MO, DO and MOD).Conclusions: Use of the sectional matrix system in two-surface Class II cavities resulted in statistically significantly tighter proximal contacts than the use of the circumferential matrix system.For the three-surface no statistically significant differences in contact tightness were found between the different matrix systems.Location of the cavity (mesially or distally) did not show to have any statistically significant effect on the obtained proximal contact tightness. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.