Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for class II composite restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up findings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study evaluated the performance of composite restorations placed with two matrix and wedge systems 4 years after placement. In a split-mouth design, 23 patients were selected and received at least two class II restorations, one with metallic matrix and wooden wedge and the other with polyester matrix and reflective wedge. One dentist placed the 109 restorations, and all cavities were restored using Single Bond and P-60 (3M ESPE) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Polymerization was performed through occlusal (metallic matrices) or through the reflective wedge (polyester matrices). Restorations were evaluated and categorized as alpha (A), bravo (B), charlie (C), and delta (D; modified United States Public Health System criteria) at baseline and 4 years after placement. Both clinical aspects and interproximal radiographs were considered in the evaluation. Data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney and Friedman tests (α = 0.05). Fifteen subjects (78 teeth/102 proximal surfaces) were reassessed after 4 years. Considering comparisons within matrices in different evaluation time points, no significant differences were observed (p > 0.05). Comparing 4-year to baseline results, the quality of marginal adaptation (40% and 40.4 %, score A), marginal staining (31.3% and 28.8%, score A), and roughness (56% and 46.2%, score A) decreased for metallic and translucent matrices, respectively (p < 0.05), while color match (9.6%, score A), occlusal contacts (75%, score A), and proximal contacts (71.7%, score A) also decreased in quality for translucent matrices (p < 0.001). Although the matrix and wedge systems evaluated showed similar clinical performance, there was clinical quality loss after 4 years, with most of the restorations being still acceptable, and no intervention was necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trushkowsky RD, Burgess JO (2002) Complex single-tooth restorations. Dent Clin North Am 46:341–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilder AD Jr, May KN Jr, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF (1999) Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 11:135–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34:427–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mjör IA (1998) The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. Quintessence Int 29:313–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung SW, Mjör IA (2001) Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 29:317–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson NH (1990) The evaluation of materials: relationships between laboratory investigations and clinical studies. Oper Dent 15:149–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keogh TP, Bertolotti RL (2001) Creating tight, anatomically correct interproximal contacts. Dent Clin North Am 45:83–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2001) Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 17:533–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC, Dorfer CE (2006) A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 34:292–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loomans BA, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, Kuijs RH (2008) The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 36:828–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingell JC (1991) A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 22:143–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH (1998) Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 26:555–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lutz F, Krejci I, Luescher B, Oldenburg TR (1986) Improved proximal margin adaptation of class II composite resin restorations by use of light-reflecting wedges. Quintessence Int 17:659–664

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lösche GM (1999) Marginal adaptation of class II composite fillings: guided polymerization vs reduced light intensity. J Adhes Dent 1:31–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Carvalho RM (2005) Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent 33:603–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Prakki A, Cilli R, Saad JO, Rodrigues JR (2004) Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of class II esthetic direct restorations. Quintessence Int 35:785–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mullejans R, Badawi MO, Raab WH, Lang H (2003) An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 28:122–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Verluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH (1998) Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res 77:1435–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cenci MS, Lund RG, Pereira CL, de Carvalho RM, Demarco FF (2006) In vivo and in vitro evaluation of class II composite resin restorations with different matrix systems. J Adhes Dent 8:127–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Pereira CL, Lund RG, Carvalho RM (2007) One year clinical comparison of metal and translucent matrices in class II resin composite restorations. Am J Dent 20:41–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Lima FG, Donassollo TA, André Dde A, Leida FL (2007) Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings. J Dent 35:231–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M (2005) Influence of food-simulating solutions and finsh on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent 33:389–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK, Holder RL (2005) Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (part 4): influence of time and place. J Dent 33:837–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest 7:63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gordan VV, Shen C, Watson RE, Mjor IA (2005) Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material. Am J Dent 18:45–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM (2006) Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness, and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 31:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NH (2002) A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 9:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NH (1999) Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 30:234–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE (2000) Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50:361–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007) Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent 9:469–475

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nordbo H, Leirskar J, Von der Fehr FR (1998) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 29:5–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3:185–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Turkun LS, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fano L, Fano V, Ma WY, Wang XG, Zhu F (2005) Adhesiveness of dental resin-based restorative materials investigated with atomic force microscopy. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 73:35–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tay FR, Hashimoto M, Pashley DH, Peters MC, Lai SC, Yiu CK, Cheong C (2003) Aging affects two modes of nanoleakage expression in bonded dentin. J Dent Res 82:537–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wendt SL Jr, Ziemiecki TL, Leinfelder KF (1996) Proximal wear rates by tooth position of resin composite restorations. J Dent 24:33–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to CNPq and CAPES for the financial support and scholarships.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5th floor, 96015 560, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    Flávio Fernando Demarco, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Dárvi de Almeida André, Renata Pereira de Sousa Barbosa, Evandro Piva & Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

  2. Post-Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    Flávio Fernando Demarco

Authors
  1. Flávio Fernando Demarco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana Pereira-Cenci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dárvi de Almeida André
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renata Pereira de Sousa Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evandro Piva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flávio Fernando Demarco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Demarco, F.F., Pereira-Cenci, T., de Almeida André, D. et al. Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for class II composite restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up findings. Clin Oral Invest 15, 39–47 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0362-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0362-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation