Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Department of Operative Dentistry, Cairo, Egypt.
Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):37-43. doi: 10.2341/09-037L.
The objective of the current study was to compare in-vitro the proximal contact tightness (PCT) of Class II resin composite restorations (RCR) placed with different established and new placement techniques.
105 ivorine lower left first molars with standardized MO cavities were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 15) as follows: SRing: sectional matrix and separation ring (Garrison Dental); CRing: circumferential matrix (1101-c, KerrHawe SA) with separation ring; CWedge: circumferential matrix with a wedge only; COptra: circumferential matrix and OptraContact (Vivadent); CCerana: circumferential matrix and a Cerana insert (Nordiska Dental); CElliot: circumferential matrix and Elliot separator (PFINGST & Co) and Walser: Walser matrix O-type (Dr Walser Dental GmbH). In all the groups, the matrix band was secured using a wooden wedge except for the Walser group, following manufacturer's recommendations. A Tofflemire retainer (Kerr Corporation) was used to apply the circumferential matrix band whenever it was used. All the prepared teeth were restored with resin composite (Premise, Kerr) mounted in a manikin head to simulate the clinical environment. PCT was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter (University of Technology, Delft). The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (p < 0.05).
Compared to the control group (SRing) (6.64 +/- 1.06N), all other systems resulted in significantly lower PCT values (p < 0.001). Within the circumferential matrix groups, CRing (4.01 +/- 0.53N) and CElliot (4.29 +/- 1.08N) showed significantly tighter contacts compared to the CWedge (0.37 +/- 0.22N), COptra (0.91 +/- 0.49N), CCerana (2.99 +/- 1.98N) and Walser (1.34 +/- 0.55N) (p < 0.05) group. Between CWedge and COptra, no significant difference was found (p = 0.57).
The use of separation rings with sectional matrices provides superior contacts when placing Class II RCRs.
本研究旨在比较不同建立和新的放置技术对 II 类树脂复合材料修复体（RCR）近程接触紧密度（PCT）的体外影响。
105 颗标准化 MO 腔的象牙质左下第一磨牙随机分为七组（每组 15 颗）：SRing：分段式基牙和分离环（Garrison Dental）；CRing：带有分离环的环形基牙（1101-c， KerrHawe SA）；CWedge：仅带楔形片的环形基牙；COptra：环形基牙和 OptraContact（Vivadent）；CCerana：环形基牙和 Cerana 插件（Nordiska Dental）；CElliot：环形基牙和 Elliot 分离器（PFINGST & Co）；Walser：Walser 型 O 型基牙（Dr Walser Dental GmbH）。除了 Walser 组外，所有组均按照制造商的建议使用木制楔形片固定基牙带。当使用环形基牙带时，使用 Tofflemire 固位器（Kerr 公司）。所有准备好的牙齿均用树脂复合材料（Premise， Kerr）修复，安装在人头模型中模拟临床环境。使用牙压计（代尔夫特科技大学）测量 PCT。使用单因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验（p < 0.05）对数据进行分析。
与对照组（SRing）（6.64 ± 1.06N）相比，所有其他系统的 PCT 值均显著降低（p < 0.001）。在环形基牙组中，CRing（4.01 ± 0.53N）和 CElliot（4.29 ± 1.08N）的近程接触明显比 CWedge（0.37 ± 0.22N）、COptra（0.91 ± 0.49N）、CCerana（2.99 ± 1.98N）和 Walser（1.34 ± 0.55N）更紧密（p < 0.05）。CWedge 和 COptra 之间没有发现显著差异（p = 0.57）。
在放置 II 类 RCR 时，使用分段式基牙和分离环可提供更好的接触。
