Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 231-237, March 2007

Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings

  • Flávio Fernando Demarco

      Affiliations

    • Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, UFPel, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5° andar, CEP 96015 560, Pelotas, RS, Brazil. Tel.: +55 5332224439; fax: +55 53 32255581.
  • ,
  • Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

      Affiliations

    • Graduate Program in Dentistry, Cariology Area, Faculty of Dentistry of Piracicaba, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
  • ,
  • Fábio Garcia Lima

      Affiliations

    • Graduate Program in Dentistry, Operative Dentistry Area, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
  • ,
  • Tiago Aurélio Donassollo

      Affiliations

    • Graduate Program in Dentistry, Operative Dentistry Area, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
  • ,
  • Dárvi de Almeida André

      Affiliations

    • Undergraduate Students School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil
  • ,
  • Ferdinan Luís Leida

      Affiliations

    • Undergraduate Students School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil

Received 20 March 2006; received in revised form 25 July 2006; accepted 29 July 2006.

Abstract 

Objective

The aim of this randomized, clinical study was to evaluate the performance of composite restorations placed with two matrix and wedge systems after a 2-year follow-up.

Methods

Twenty-three patients were selected, and received at least two Class II restorations, one with metallic matrix and wooden wedge and other with polyester matrix and reflective wedge. One dentist placed all the 109 restorations. All cavities were restored using Single Bond and P-60 (3M ESPE), according to manufacturer's instructions. In the metal matrix group, polymerization was performed from occlusal, and in the polyester group, through the reflective wedge. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 and 24 months by the modified USPHS criteria, and data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests (α=0.05).

Results

Fifteen subjects and 78 restorations were re-evaluated after 24 months. A significant decrease in the quality of cervical adaptation and proximal contacts by radiographic evaluation was evidenced (p<0.05), but no differences between the two matrix systems were detected (p>0.05). In the clinical evaluation there were no significant differences between matrices after 2 years (p>0.05). A compromising of marginal adaptation, marginal staining and proximal contacts aspects for both matrix systems was evidenced, and restorations placed with translucent matrices showed loss of color stability (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Whereas restorations presented some clinical aspects somewhat compromised after 2 years, the matrix and wedge systems evaluated showed similar clinical performance.

Keywords: Composite resin, Matrix systems, Posterior restorations, Clinical trial

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0300-5712(06)00158-8

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.011

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 231-237, March 2007