Comparative Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness of Two Different Sectional Matrix Systems with Two Different Composite Restorative Materials: An Invivo study

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the proximal contact tightness of two different sectional matrix systems with two different composite restorative materials – An Invivo Study MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients ranging from 18 to 40 years old were enrolled and included in the study. Patients were selected and randomly divided into two experimental groups based on matrix systems used (n = 20 each). Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups based on the composite materials used. In Group 1, BiTine sectional matrix system was used. In Group 2, saddle sectional matrix system was used. In subgroup A, Filtek P60 composite (Microhybrid) was used. In subgroup B, Tetric N ceram universal composite (Nanohybrid) was used. After placing the matrix system. All restorations were placed by one operator. After the restorative procedure, bitewing radiographs was taken to evaluate the proximal contour and contact point. Proximal contact tightness on the contralateral side and existing side was measured by two examiners after the treatment using dental floss under FDI Criteria. Proximal contact tightness was recorded before treatment and directly after finishing the restoration. Scoring was recorded and tabulated for each patient. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis was performed using EPI-INFO (version 7.2.2.6, CDC license: Atlanta, Georgia US: public domain) software. To measure the association between the categorical variables and outcome, Chi-square test was used. Kappa statistical test was used for interexaminer consistency. Significance level was fixed at 5% (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference between two groups and there was no statistically significant difference between two sub-groups. The scores were statistically analyzed using kappa statistical test for inter-examiner consistency, and the result of the analysis was 1.00 implying perfect agreement between the examiners. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study suggest that there was significant difference between the matrix systems and there was no significant difference between the composite restorative materials used. When evaluated using FDI criteria for tightness of contact, the BiTine ring sectional matrix system produced clinically good tight contacts, whereas the saddle sectional matrix system produced more clinically excellent tight contacts. A long-term follow up of the restorations is necessary to determine whether one of the matrix systems results in better performance and longevity than the other as well as one type of resin composite performs better than the other among the two evaluated