Comparative Evaluation of Proximal Amalgam Restoration Contact Tightness Between Tofflemaire and Sectional Matrices Through Radiograph – A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Background: It is difficult to achieve correct proximal contacts with straight posterior amalgam fillings due to the body’s anatomical structures. This is due to the fact that amalgam cannot be “condensed” which means the material does not shrink while the teeth are not moving. Research has tried to improve materials and methods to solve these issues. The primary objective for this investigation will be to assess and evaluate the Proximal contact strength for two different types of matrix band systems utilized with class II amalgam fillings.
Methodology
One did a random allocation of all 66 patients who were diagnosed with class II caries into two groups. Group A comprised 33 who had a Tofflemire matrix system while Group B had 33 who had a Triodent matrix system. Assessment of the contact of the fusion over the amalgam proximal contact was done v X-ray examinations were done at 0, 1, 3, and 6 months. In addition, radiographic examinations of the overhanging edges were also performed and data collected were analyzed in a systematic manner.
Results
The Triodent matrix system group demonstrated greater Proximal contact tightness than the control group (p=0.050). There was no statistically significant difference in the proximal contact tightness from the start of study to the follow-ups at 1, 3, and 6 months. A s-ray examination showed no peripheral extension in both groups.
In conclusion:
The level of proximal contacts achieved with the segment matrix system together with class II amalgam fillings was significantly higher than that achieved using the Tofflemire matrix band system. At the 6-month follow-up, the level of proximal contact tightness attained at the start was maintained throughout the study.
References
2. Ash MM. Wheeler’s dental anatomy physiology and occlusion. Dental anatomy, physiology, and occlusion. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003.
3. Wilder AD, May KN, Strickland WD. Amalgam restorations for classes II cavity preparations. In: Sturdevant CM, Roberson TM, Heymann TM, Sturdevant JR, editors.
The art and science of operative dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1995.
4. Hallmon WW, Waldrop TC, Houston GD, Hawkins BF. Flossing clefts. Clinical and histologic observations. Journal of Periodontology 1986;57:501–4.
5. Burke FJ, Shortall AC. Successful restoration of load- bearing cavities in posterior teeth with direct- replacement resin-based amalgam. Dental Update2001;28:388–98
6. Dorfer CE, Schriever A, Heidemann D, Staehle HJ, Pioch T. Influence of rubber-dam on the reconstruction of proximal contacts with adhesive tooth-colored restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2001;3:169–75.
7. Rau PJ, Pioch T, Staehle HJ, Dorfer CE. Influence of the rubber dam on proximal contact strengths. Operative Dentistry 2006;31:171–5.
8. Van der Vyver PJ. Posterior amalgam resin restorations. Part 3. Matrix systems. Journal of the South African Dental Association 2002;57:221–6
9. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International dental journal 1980;30;347-358
10. Du boisLM, The magnitude of interproximal spaces between adjacent tooth.American dental journal of dentistry 1993;6;315-7
11. Southard TE, Behrants RG, Tolley EA. Variation of approximal tooth contact tightness with postural change. JDR 1990;69:1776-9
12. Dorfer Factors influencing proximal contact strengths. European journal of oral sciences 2000;108;368-77
13. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P, et al. Do condensable amalgams help to achieve better proximal contacts?Dental Materials 2001;17:533–41.
14. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC. Comparison of proximal contacts of Class II resin amalgam restorations in vitro. Operative Dentistry 2006;31:688–93.
15. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters JF, Bronkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJ. Influence of amalgam resin consistency and placement technique on proximal contact tightness of Class II restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2006;8:305–10.
16. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC, Do ̈rfer CE. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior amalgams. Journal of Dentistry 2006;34:292–7.
17. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters FJ, Do ̈rfer CE. A clinical study on interdental separation techniques. Operative Dentistry2007;32:207–11.
18. Kampouropoulos D, Paximada C, Loukidis M, Kakaboura A. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin amalgam restorations. Operative dentistry. 2010 Jul;35(4):454-62.
19. Cenci MS, Lund RG, Pereira CL, De Carvalho RM, Demarco FF. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of Class II amalgam resin restorations with different matrix systems. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2006.
20. Oh SH, Nakano M, Bando E, Shigemoto S, Kori M. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2004 Jun 1;31(6):538-45.
21. Hancock EB, Mayo CV, Schwab RR, Wirthlin MR. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1980;51:445–449.1.
22. Shennib HAF, Wilson NHF. An investigation of the adequacy of interproximal matrices commonly used with posterior amalgam restorations. J Dent 1986;14:84–6.
23. Wirsching E, Loomans BA, Klaiber B, Dörfer CE. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior amalgam restorations in vivo. journal of dentistry. 2011 May 31;39(5):386-90.
24. Chuang SF, Su KC, Wang CH, Chang CH. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. journal of dentistry. 2011 Jun 30;39(6):448-56.
25. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJ. The long-term effect of a amalgam resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. journal of dentistry. 2007 Feb 28;35(2):104-8.
26. Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Lima FG, Donassollo TA, de Almeida André D, Leida FL. Class II amalgam restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings. Journal of dentistry. 2007 Mar 31;35(3):231-7.
27. Demarco FF, Pereira-Cenci T, de Almeida André D, de Sousa Barbosa RP, Piva E, Cenci MS. Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for class II amalgam restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up findings. Clinical oral investigations. 2011 Feb 1;15(1):39-47.
