Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems

dc.contributor.authorGomes, Isabella Azevedo
dc.contributor.authorFilho, Etevaldo Matos Maia
dc.contributor.authorMariz, Debora Castelo Branco Rios
dc.contributor.authorBorges, Alvaro Henrique
dc.contributor.authorTonetto, Mateus Rodrigues
dc.contributor.authorFiroozmand, Leily Macedo
dc.contributor.authorKuga, Carlos Milton [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDe Jesus, Rudys Rodolfo Tavarez
dc.contributor.authorBandéca, Matheus Coelho
dc.contributor.institutionCEUMA University
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Maranhao-UFMA
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-29T07:53:47Z
dc.date.available2022-04-29T07:53:47Z
dc.date.issued2015-08-01
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vivo study was to radiographically evaluate the proximal contour of composite resin restorations performed using different matrix systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with premolars needing class II type resin composite restorations involving the marginal ridge were selected. Thirty premolars were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10 each) to receive restorations using different matrix systems: group 1: metal matrix coupled to a carrier matrix and wood wedge (G1-MMW); group 2: sectioned and precontoured metal matrix and elastic wedge (G2-SME); and group 3: a polyester strip and reflective wedge (G3-PMR). After the restorative procedure, bitewing radiographs were performed and analyzed by three calibrated professionals. The quality of the proximal contact and marginal adaptation of the proximal surfaces was classified as either correct or incorrect (undercontour/overcontour). RESULTS: The Pearson Chi-square statistical test (α = 5%) revealed a statistically difference between frequencies of correct and incorrect restorations (α(2) = 6.787, p < 0.05). The group G2 SME produced a higher frequency of correct proximal contours (90%), while G1-MMW and G3-PMR had a ratio of 40% correct and 60% incorrect contours respectively. CONCLUSION: None of the matrix systems was able to prevent the formation of incorrect proximal contours; however, the sectioned and precontoured metal matrix/elastic wedge configuration provided better results as compared to the other groups.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Postgraduate in Dentistry CEUMA University
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Postgraduate in Integrated Dental Science University of Cuiaba
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dentistry I Federal University of Maranhao-UFMA
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Araraquara Dental School Univ Estadual Paulista
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Postgraduate in Dentistry CEUMA University, University Rua Jossue Montello
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Araraquara Dental School Univ Estadual Paulista
dc.format.extent643-647
dc.identifier.citationThe journal of contemporary dental practice, v. 16, n. 8, p. 643-647, 2015.
dc.identifier.issn1526-3711
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84992735759
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/228241
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofThe journal of contemporary dental practice
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectComposite resins
dc.subjectEsthetics
dc.subjectRadiography
dc.titleIn vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systemsen
dc.typeArtigo
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araraquarapt
unesp.departmentOdontologia Restauradora - FOARpt

Arquivos