A clinical study on interdental separation techniques.

Abstract

The effect of interdental separation of a special separation ring and wooden wedge was investigated. In a split-mouth design, 27 patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (W or S). In 11 patients, an interdental wooden wedge (Hawe-Neos) was placed (group W), and in 16 patients, a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold) was placed at the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6. Simultaneously, in both groups, a wooden wedge, combined with a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold), was placed on the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6 (reference group W+S). To measure proximal contact tightness, frictional forces were recorded at the removal of a 0.05 mm thick metal matrix band inserted between adjacent teeth. Contact tightness was measured at contacts 4 and 5 and at 5 and 6 in the third and fourth quadrant using the Tooth Pressure Meter prior to applying separation devices (TO) five minutes after application (T1) and five minutes after removal of the devices (T2). The effect of separation was determined by calculating the differences between contact tightness before application and contact tightness with the devices in situ (T1-T0). Interdental recovery was calculated by the difference in contact tightness before application and after removal of the devices (T2-T0). To assess the presence of statistically significant differences between these measurement times, paired t-tests were applied. With each patient, either a comparison between W and W+S or S and W+S was made. For both W versus W+S and S versus W+S, paired t-tests were applied to compare differences (T1-T0 and T2-T0) between the separation devices. Within a patient, groups W and S could not be compared, therefore, to compare separation achieved between these two devices, unpaired t-tests were used. The increase in contact tightness measured at contact 4 and 5 for group W (0.98 +/- 0.26 N) was statistically significantly less compared to the increase in group S (5.48 +/- 0.88 N) (p < 0.001) or group W+S (4.62 +/- 0.68 N) (p = 0.02). No significant differences were found between groups S and W+S (p = 0.77). For all groups, five minutes after removal of the devices, the contact tightness at contact 4 and 5 and at contact 5 and 6 were still significantly weaker compared to the tightness at baseline (p < 0.02). When separation is required for restorative procedures, such as at placement of a Class II resin composite restoration, special separation rings may be more useful than wooden wedges.