Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction

Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Comparison of the proximal contact tightness of the two study groups; Chi-square test is applied; the level of significance was set at 5%; *Statistically significant difference; df: Degree of freedom Comparison of the two study groups with respect to proximal contours and overhang formation; Chi-square test was applied and the level of significance was set at 0.05 There is a strong evidence base in favor of employing separation ring for class II composite restorations. The studies [4][5][6][11][12][13][14][15][16] in this regards actually recommend using separation ring in combination with sectional matrices. But it is not clear whether the positive results (tight contact) achieved by sectional matrix-separation ring assembly is attributed to the matrix or to the separation ring.…”

“…Probably, it has more to do with the technique of matrix band and wedge placement than any other variable. Chuang et al 13 attributed the interproximal marginal overhang to surface concavity resulted from band placement and ring application. With increasing number of dentist using composites in selected posterior load bearing situations, a proportion of practitioners still do not prefer to place composite at all in the class II preparations.…”

Polymerization profile analysis of resin composite dental restorative materials in real time

“…[10][11][12] Defective proximal contacts occurring as a result of composite polymerization shrinkage may also contribute to recurrent caries occurrence; defective contacts facilitating bacterial and food accumulation at proximal margins. 13,14 Since the development of resin composites for use in restorative dentistry, the primary means used by manufacturers to reduce the effects of composite polymerization shrinkage has been through increasing resin filler content. 15 More recently, dental manufacturers have sought to overcome the effects of polymerization contraction through utilizing ''low contraction'' monomers as the basis of the resin component.…”

Mechanical Properties Comparing Composite Fiber Length to Amalgam

“…Also, without proper consistency, dental PFCs cannot condense or pack similar to the amalgam that often prevents reestablishment of the interproximal contact in a class II filling [58, 61]. In fact, the past two most commonly mentioned clinical complaints regarding class II composites have been frequent poor inter-proximal contacts [69–76] and void defects in the proximal box [69]. …”