Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Apr 19;19(9):4961.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19094961.

Influence of Matrix Type on Marginal Gap Formation of Deep Class II Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations

Britta Hahn  1 , Imme Haubitz  1 , Ralf Krug  1 , Gabriel Krastl  1 , Sebastian Soliman  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Influence of Matrix Type on Marginal Gap Formation of Deep Class II Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations

Britta Hahn et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: To test the hypothesis that transparent matrices result in more continuous margins of bulk-fill composite (BFC) restorations than metal matrices. Methods: Forty standardized MOD cavities in human molars with cervical margins in enamel and dentin were created and randomly assigned to four restorative treatment protocols: conventional nanohybrid composite (NANO) restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (NANO-METAL) versus transparent matrix (NANO-TRANS), and bulk-fill composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (BFC-METAL) versus transparent matrix (BFC-TRANS). After artificial aging (2500 thermal cycles), marginal quality was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy using the replica technique. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann−Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon test. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results: Metal matrices yielded significantly (p = 0.0011) more continuous margins (46.211%) than transparent matrices (27.073%). Differences in continuous margins between NANO (34.482%) and BFC (38.802%) were not significant (p = 0.56). Matrix type did not influence marginal gap formation in BFC (p = 0.27) but did in NANO restorations (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Metal matrices positively influence the marginal quality of class II composite restorations, especially in deep cavity areas. The bulk-fill composite seems to be less sensitive to the influence of factors such as light polymerization and matrix type.

Keywords: SEM; bulk-fill technique; centripetal technique; class II restoration; marginal gap formation; metal matrix; transparent matrix.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cavity design and cavity dimensions (arrows); E = proximal box located within enamel; O = occlusal cavity; D = proximal box cervically located in dentin; CEJ = cementoenamel junction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Artificial dental model with mounted specimen tooth, metal matrix secured in a Tofflemire holder, wooden wedges, and separation rings.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Experimental setup with the four experimental groups; red digits represent the order and number of composite increments. NANO = Tetric EvoCeram; BFC = Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill; METAL = metal matrix; TRANS = transparent matrix; CEJ = cementoenamel junction.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Representative SEM images of the marginal quality outcomes: (a) continuous margin and (b) marginal gap.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mean percentages with standard deviation of continuous margins in enamel (E) and dentin (D) in all groups; NANO = Tetric EvoCeram; BFC = Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill; METAL = metal matrix band, TRANS = transparent matrix band.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schierz O., Baba K., Fueki K. Functional oral health-related quality of life impact: A systematic review in populations with tooth loss. J. Oral Rehabil. 2021;48:256–270. doi: 10.1111/joor.12984. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carvalho J.C., Mestrinho H.D., Stevens S., van Wijk A.J. Do oral health conditions adversely impact young adults? Caries Res. 2015;49:266–274. doi: 10.1159/000375377. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Ende A., De Munck J., Lise D.P., Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-Fill Composites: A Review of the Current Literature. J. Adhes. Dent. 2017;19:95–109. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a38141. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cidreira Boaro L.C., Pereira Lopes D., de Souza A.S.C., Lie Nakano E., Ayala Perez M.D., Pfeifer C.S., Goncalves F. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent. Mater. 2019;35:e249–e264. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heck K., Manhart J., Hickel R., Diegritz C. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. Dent. Mater. 2018;34:e138–e147. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.023. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources