Sulaiman Taiseer A, Alsahafi Tariq A, Frizoni Fernanda de O M, Suliman Abdulhaq A
Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Oral and Craniofacial Biomedicine PhD Student, Teaching Assistant, Department of Restorative Sciences, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, NC. Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Jun 25. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13505.
Restoring defective proximal contour, embrasure, and contact to normal tooth anatomy in proximal cavities remains a clinical problem to this day. Multiple sectional matrix systems have been developed over the years to help achieve positive outcomes; however, objective examination of contemporary systems is scarce.
To evaluate proximal contour and composite resin flash, marginal overhang, and ring retention of different sectional matrix systems.
Totally 45 mesio-occlusal cavity-prepped ivory plastic lower right first molars were used. Three different sectional matrix systems were evaluated: STRATA-G, Garrison; Complete Biofit HD, Bioclear; and Palodent Plus, Dentsply Sirona. Fifteen teeth were restored with a composite resin for each matrix system. The teeth were scanned and analyzed using 3D analysis software. Matrix systems' rings retention was analyzed using a pull-out test in a universal testing machine. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05) were used to analyze the data.
Significant differences in average deviation in proximal contour and ring retention were observed among matrix systems (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in average marginal overhang between matrix systems (p = 0.182). The STRATA-G matrix system had the lowest proximal contour variation (100 μm). Higher variations of 115 μm and 160 μm were seen in the Biofit HD and Palodent Plus matrix systems, respectively. The SRATA-G matrix system produced a minimal marginal overhang of 26.9 μm, while the Biofit HD and Palodent Plus matrix systems showed marginal overhang increases of 34.0 μm and 36.9 μm, respectively. Ring retention of the STRATA-G sectional matrix ring (7.27 N) was significantly higher than Biofit HD (5.47 N) and Palodent Plus (3.35 N) (p < 0.05).
The SRATA-G matrix system showed less deviation in proximal contour and resin marginal overhang than both the Biofit HD and Palodent Plus matrix systems. Also, SRATA-G had the most retentive sectional matrix ring.
Multiple sectional matrix systems are available for clinicians. Objective analysis of these systems' impact on the tooth proximal contour and resin marginal overhang of restored surfaces may provide clinicians with a deeper understanding of their differences. Enhanced ring retention allows the clinician to complete the restoration worry-free of the ring being displaced.
时至今日，在近中窝洞修复中恢复有缺陷的近中外形、牙间隙和接触关系使其恢复至正常牙齿解剖结构仍是一个临床难题。多年来已研发出多种分段式成形片系统以帮助取得良好效果；然而，对当代系统的客观研究却很匮乏。
评估不同分段式成形片系统的近中外形、复合树脂飞边、边缘悬突及成形片固位情况。
共使用45颗制备了近中-牙合面洞的象牙塑料右下第一磨牙。评估了三种不同的分段式成形片系统：STRATA-G（加里森公司）；Complete Biofit HD（Bioclear公司）；以及Palodent Plus（登士柏西诺德公司）。每种成形片系统用复合树脂修复15颗牙齿。使用三维分析软件对牙齿进行扫描和分析。在万能试验机上通过拔出试验分析成形片系统的成形片固位情况。采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）和Tukey事后检验（α = 0.05）分析数据。
各成形片系统在近中外形平均偏差和成形片固位方面存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。各成形片系统之间的平均边缘悬突无显著差异（p = 0.182）。STRATA-G成形片系统的近中外形变化最小（100μm）。Biofit HD和Palodent Plus成形片系统的变化分别为115μm和160μm，更大。STRATA-G成形片系统产生的最小边缘悬突为26.9μm，而Biofit HD和Palodent Plus成形片系统的边缘悬突分别增加了34.0μm和36.9μm。STRATA-G分段式成形片的固位力（7.27N）显著高于Biofit HD（5.47N）和Palodent Plus（3.35N）（p < 0.05）。
STRATA-G成形片系统在近中外形和树脂边缘悬突方面的偏差小于Biofit HD和Palodent Plus成形片系统。此外，STRATA-G的分段式成形片固位力最强。
临床医生有多种分段式成形片系统可供选择。对这些系统对修复面牙齿近中外形和树脂边缘悬突影响的客观分析可能会让临床医生更深入地了解它们之间的差异。增强的成形片固位力使临床医生在修复过程中无需担心成形片移位。
Zotero 插件