Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial
Abstract Background Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5 |
| _version_ | 1797556025478348800 |
|---|---|
| author | Karim M. Abbassy Waleed A. Elmahy Ahmed A. Holiel |
| author_facet | Karim M. Abbassy Waleed A. Elmahy Ahmed A. Holiel |
| author_sort | Karim M. Abbassy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments. Methods 72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18–40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05). Results Contact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5. Conclusions The use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T16:55:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6e7b7f88d85a41f3b079bb88937f5115 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T16:55:50Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-6e7b7f88d85a41f3b079bb88937f51152023-11-20T11:07:57ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-10-0123111010.1186/s12903-023-03462-5Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trialKarim M. Abbassy0Waleed A. Elmahy1Ahmed A. Holiel2Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria UniversityConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria UniversityConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria UniversityAbstract Background Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments. Methods 72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18–40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05). Results Contact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5. Conclusions The use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5Proximal contactSectional matrixContact forming instrumentComposite restorationDentistryDental restoration |
| spellingShingle | Karim M. Abbassy Waleed A. Elmahy Ahmed A. Holiel Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial BMC Oral Health Proximal contact Sectional matrix Contact forming instrument Composite restoration Dentistry Dental restoration |
| title | Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| title_full | Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| title_short | Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| title_sort | evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class ii resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments a 1 year randomized controlled clinical trial |
| topic | Proximal contact Sectional matrix Contact forming instrument Composite restoration Dentistry Dental restoration |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT karimmabbassy evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT waleedaelmahy evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT ahmedaholiel evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |