Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G
BIOMAT-Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Dent Mater. 2001 Nov;17(6):533-41. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00015-x.
Obtaining acceptable contact areas with adjacent teeth is a significant challenge when placing direct resin composite in Class II preparations. It was the purpose of this laboratory study to evaluate the influence of the type of resin composite ('packable' vs conventional) and of the matrix system on the quality of the proximal contact area in Class II composite restorations.
A standardized DO cavity was prepared in 170 frasaco teeth. Two operators each filled 85 teeth in the same frasaco model using four resin composites [Solitaire (S), Surefil (Su), P60, Z100], three matrix systems [Automatrix (A), Palodent (P), Lucifix matrix (L)] and one hand instrument specially designed to achieve better proximal contacts [Belvedere Composite Contact Former (B)]. The teeth were subdivided into 17 groups (Z100/1-A, Z100/1-P, Z100/1-L, S-A, S-P, S-L, Z100/1-A-B, Z100/1-L-B, Su-A, Su-P, Su-L, P60-A, P60-P, P60-L, Z100/2-A, Z100/2-P, Z100/2-L). Each operator made five fillings of each group. The quality of the proximal contacts was assessed by measuring the maximum mesio-distal (M-D) diameter of the restored teeth using a digital micrometer and the tightness of the proximal contact area using standardized metal blades. All data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn's test for multiple comparisons with a significance level of P<0.05.
Regarding the matrix system, a significant larger M-D diameter and a stronger proximal contact area was achieved with the Palodent matrix system. The use of the Belvedere Composite Contact Former together with Lucifix matrix and Automatrix contributed to significantly stronger proximal contact areas. Concerning the type of resin composite, no significant differences were noted for both evaluation criteria when Palodent was used. Using Automatrix or Lucifix matrix, the more condensable resin composite P60 scored slightly better than Surefil and Z100. There was no operator effect. Both operators underwent a learning process. The longer they worked with a specific material/technique, the better proximal contacts they achieved.
The best proximal contact areas in Class II composite restorations were obtained using a sectional matrix system. The 'packability' of the resin composite did not help to achieve better proximal contacts.
在Ⅱ类洞型中放置直接树脂复合材料时，获得与相邻牙齿可接受的接触面积是一项重大挑战。本实验室研究的目的是评估树脂复合材料类型（“可压实型”与传统型）和基质系统对Ⅱ类复合树脂修复体近中接触区质量的影响。
在170颗弗拉萨科牙齿上制备标准化的DO洞型。两名操作人员在相同的弗拉萨科模型中，使用四种树脂复合材料[Solitaire（S）、Surefil（Su）、P60、Z100]、三种基质系统[Automatrix（A）、Palodent（P）、Lucifix基质（L）]以及一种专门设计用于实现更好近中接触的手动器械[Belvedere复合接触成型器（B）]，分别填充85颗牙齿。牙齿被细分为17组（Z100/1-A、Z100/1-P、Z100/1-L、S-A、S-P、S-L、Z100/1-A-B、Z100/1-L-B、Su-A、Su-P、Su-L、P60-A、P60-P、P60-L、Z100/2-A、Z100/2-P、Z100/2-L）。每位操作人员对每组进行五次填充。通过使用数字千分尺测量修复后牙齿的最大近远中（M-D）直径以及使用标准化金属刀片测量近中接触区的紧密程度来评估近中接触的质量。所有数据使用双向方差分析和Bonferroni/Dunn检验进行多重比较，显著性水平为P<0.05。
关于基质系统，使用Palodent基质系统可获得显著更大的M-D直径和更强的近中接触区。将Belvedere复合接触成型器与Lucifix基质和Automatrix一起使用有助于显著增强近中接触区。关于树脂复合材料类型，当使用Palodent时，两种评估标准均未发现显著差异。使用Automatrix或Lucifix基质时，可压实性更强的树脂复合材料P60的表现略优于Surefil和Z100。不存在操作人员效应。两名操作人员都经历了一个学习过程。他们使用特定材料/技术的时间越长，获得的近中接触就越好。
使用分段基质系统可在Ⅱ类复合树脂修复体中获得最佳的近中接触区。树脂复合材料的“可压实性”无助于实现更好的近中接触。
