Cargando…
Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial
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 apply...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10559497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37805456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5 |
_version_ | 1785117512760819712 |
---|---|
author | Abbassy, Karim M. Elmahy, Waleed A. Holiel, Ahmed A. |
author_facet | Abbassy, Karim M. Elmahy, Waleed A. Holiel, Ahmed A. |
author_sort | Abbassy, Karim M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10559497 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105594972023-10-08 Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial Abbassy, Karim M. Elmahy, Waleed A. Holiel, Ahmed A. BMC Oral Health Research 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. BioMed Central 2023-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10559497/ /pubmed/37805456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Abbassy, Karim M. Elmahy, Waleed A. Holiel, Ahmed A. 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 | 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 | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10559497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37805456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03462-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abbassykarimm evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT elmahywaleeda evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT holielahmeda evaluationoftheproximalcontacttightnessinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingdifferentcontactforminginstrumentsa1yearrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |