Journal of oral science · 2025
Influence of resin and matrix systems on the three-dimensional geometry of reproduced proximal surfaces in Class II resin restorations of primary molars.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alshehri Faisal S, Ye Ju Ri, Birkhoff Mandy K, Jih Myeong-Kwan, Chae Yong Kwon, Lee Hyo-Seol, Choi Sung Chul, Nam Ok Hyung
Аннотация
PURPOSE: As the anatomy of proximal contact areas affects the risk of dental caries in primary molars, this study aimed to assess the impact of different resin and matrix systems on the geometry of reproduced proximal surfaces in primary molars.
METHODS: Sixty mandibular primary first molar typodont teeth were prepared with standardized disto-occlusal cavities. Two experimental groups were created: Group I utilized GC UniFil Flow and Filtek Z250 XT; Group II utilized SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable Composite and Ceram.x Spectra ST. Each group was further subdivided into the Palodent V3 sectional matrix system (P) and the Tofflemire matrix system (T). Digital evaluations were then performed to calculate discrepancies.
RESULTS: Significant discrepancies were found only between Group IT and Group IIP in the middle third (P < 0.05). Average root mean square values at proximal contact surfaces did not differ significantly among the groups. The proximal surface shape was also not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, the reproduced proximal surface geometry was not significantly affected by the type of resin and matrix system.
METHODS: Sixty mandibular primary first molar typodont teeth were prepared with standardized disto-occlusal cavities. Two experimental groups were created: Group I utilized GC UniFil Flow and Filtek Z250 XT; Group II utilized SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable Composite and Ceram.x Spectra ST. Each group was further subdivided into the Palodent V3 sectional matrix system (P) and the Tofflemire matrix system (T). Digital evaluations were then performed to calculate discrepancies.
RESULTS: Significant discrepancies were found only between Group IT and Group IIP in the middle third (P < 0.05). Average root mean square values at proximal contact surfaces did not differ significantly among the groups. The proximal surface shape was also not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, the reproduced proximal surface geometry was not significantly affected by the type of resin and matrix system.