Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Oper Dent. 2003 Mar-Apr;28(2):122-6.

An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations.

Author information

1
Department of Restorative and Preventive Dentistry, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany. muellejr@uni-duesseldorf.de

Abstract

This study compared excess formation of direct bonded Class II restorations using different matrix systems-metal or transparent. Sixty freshly extracted, non-carious, posterior human teeth were used. In all of the teeth, standardized MOD-cavities were prepared with the gingivoproximal margins located 1.0-1.5 mm cervical to the cemento-enamel junction. The prepared teeth were randomly assigned to six groups. Half were restored using metal matrices and wooden wedges; the other half were restored using transparent matrices and reflective wedges. Three different material systems were used to fill the cavities: 1) a hybrid composite (Tetric) plus an adhesive bonding agent (Syntac Classic), 2) a flowable composite (Tetric Flow) plus Syntac Classic and 3) a compomer (Dyract AP) together with an adhesive bonding agent designed for compomers (Prime & Bond NT). After the specimens were preserved in saline solution, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assessed the amount of overhang formation at the restoration margins. The data collected indicated the use of transparent matrices resulted in significantly higher amounts of excess material at the restoration margins compared with metal matrices. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the materials when the same matrix was used. All of the dental restorations examined displayed material overhang. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that the type of matrix exerts a major impact on overhang formation, with metal matrices resulting in significantly less excess material buildup.

PMID:
12670066
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center