English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the placement technique and type of composite resin on the restoration of proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations in comparison to amalgam restoration. Materials and methods: 100 standardized mesiooclusual (MO) cavities were prepared in 100 artificial mandibular first molars used in the study grouped into four groups according to type of restorations; (co): amalgam restorations (10 specimens),( C1): flowable composite (nanohybrid Z350) (30 specimens),( C2): conventional / regular composite (nanohybrid Z250) (30 specimens), (C3): packable composite (microhybrid P60) (30 specimens).The composite restoration groups were further divided into three groups 10 specimens each according to placement techniques as follows:(P1): Tofflemire matrix system. (P2): sectional matrix system with special rings.(P3): transparent matrix system. Tensometer was used to measure the contact tightness and the length of the contact arc. Results Data was analyzed using two way ANOVA. Results showed that using transparent matrix with conventional composite was the only group that showed higher statically significant results to the control group. Conclusion: Amalgam is still superior to composite resin in restoring proximal contact, Packable (condensable) composite offers neither advantage nor other composite in restoring contact, Matrix system performance varied according to composite type used.

The Influence of Placement Technique and Composite Type on the Proximal Contact in Class II Resin Restorations