International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Farhan Raza Khan, Fahad Umer, Munawar Rahman

Citation Information : Khan FR, Umer F, Rahman M. Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2013; 3 (1):7-13.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1068

Published Online: 01-03-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the proximal contacts and contours in class II composite restorations in premolars achieved with Automatrix band with separation ring vs Automatrix band alone.

Materials and methods

A total of 188 premolar teeth with proximal cavity were assigned on alternate basis in two groups. Intervention group teeth received Automatrix band with separation ring using clamp forceps, while the control group received Automatrix band alone. All preparations were restored with P-60 composite (3M-ESPE Dental, USA). The outcome (proximal tightness) was determined by a blinded assessor. Chi-square test was applied to compare the contact tightness between the two groups. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was applied to determine any correlation between the contact tightness with proximal contours. p-value of 0.05 was taken as significant.

Results

The intervention group exhibited better proximal contacts than the control group (p-value 0.040). There was no correlation between the contact tightness and the proximal contours.

Conclusion

The use of separation ring along with Automatrix matrix band in class II composite restorations resulted in significantly better proximal contacts than Automatrix band alone. However, the separation ring does not contribute in producing an additional improvement in the proximal contours. The proximal contour has no relationship with the proximal contact tightness.

Clinical significance

Several techniques have been advocated to get tight contacts in composites including interdental separation ring. Our study focuses on using separation ring with circumferential matrix band instead of a sectional band. Moreover, we have attempted to study proximal tightness and proximal contours of composite restoration as separate variables.

How to cite this article

Khan FR, Umer F, Rahman M. Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2013;3(1):7-13.


PDF Share
  1. Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 8th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsiever 2003; p 121-129.
  2. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1980 Aug;51(8):445-449.
  3. Relationship between proximal tooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1983 Sep;54(9):529-533.
  4. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):37-43.
  5. Influence of composite resin consistency and placement technique on proximal contact tightness of class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 2006 Oct;8(5):305-310.
  6. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001 Nov;17(6):533-541.
  7. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2006 p 32-35.
  8. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010 Jul-Aug;35(4):454-462.
  9. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. Carol Stream, IL: Quintessence 2000; p 34-35.
  10. Proximal contact formation with different restorative materials and techniques. Am J Dent 2002 Aug;15(4):232-235.
  11. Comparison of proximal contacts of Class II resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2006 Nov-Dec;31(6):688-693.
  12. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2008 Oct;36(10):828-832.
  13. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J Dent 2011 Jun;39(6):448-456.
  14. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 2006 Apr;34(4):292-297.
  15. The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent 2007 Feb;35(2):104-108.
  16. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 2011 May;39(5):386-390.
  17. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of class II composite resin restorations with different matrix systems. J Adhes Dent 2006 Apr;8(2):127-132.
  18. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J Oral Rehabil 2004 Jun;31(6):538-545.
  19. Restoration of proximal contact in direct class II resin composites. Oper Dent 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):155-156.
  20. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns and caries in adjacent teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011 Mar;21(3):134-137.
  21. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings. J Dent 2007 Mar;35(3):231-237.
  22. Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for Class II composite restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up findings. Clin Oral Investig 2011 Feb;15(1):39-47.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.