JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 660
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 10-16

Clinical evaluation of sectional matrix versus circumferential matrix for reproduction of proximal contact by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: A randomized controlled trial


Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Omar Osama Shaalan
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, Postal address: 35 Mohamad Farid Street El Hay El Motamayz, Sixth of October City, Giza.
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_303_20

Rights and Permissions

Aim: In clinical practice, obtaining physiologic proximal contact points is essential for protection of balance and harmony of the stomatognathic system. Consequently, challenges have emerged due to the technique sensitivity of the restorative procedures of posterior proximal resin composite restorations. This study aimed at assessing the influence of different matricing techniques; either sectional matrix or circumferential matrix and operator experience; either undergraduate students or postgraduate dentists on reproduction of optimum proximal contacts for posterior proximal resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 patients were enrolled; after class II cavity preparation, matrix systems were applied by undergraduate students or postgraduate dentists, by using either sectional matrix or circumferential matrix systems. Cavity preparations were restored by using resin composite restorations according to manufacturers’ instructions. Tightness of proximal contacts was evaluated by using dental floss according to FDI recommendations to be either optimum, tight, or open contact. Chi-square test was used to compare between groups; P value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Relative risk (RR) was used to determine the clinical significance. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the sectional matricing technique and the circumferential matricing technique (P < 0.0001). There was less risk of poor proximal contact (tight or open) with the sectional matrix system, and the risk was 70% less than the circumferential matrix. Conclusions: Optimum contact points were highly associated with the sectional matrix system. Open and tight contacts were highly associated with the circumferential matrix system regardless of operator experience.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed630    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal