How to use a modified matrix band when creating direct composite anterior veneers
by Dr. Arthur R. Volker
with Dr. Shimaa Abdelhady and Nayerra Zahran
Direct composite is an efficient, effective
way to treat a patient’s functional and
aesthetic needs, and direct resin veneers
can be a single-visit treatment method to
address them. However, direct veneers can be
both technique-sensitive and time-consuming,
causing some clinicians to abandon their use,
opting instead for indirect veneers.
A major concern about direct resin is the
potential for air bubbles or voids created from
multiple layers of room-temperature composite.
In more extreme cases, these voids can
harbor stain or caries.1 Because composite is
not condensable like amalgam, air entrapment
can occur from multiple passes with a hand
instrument such as a plugger. Manipulating
composite resin as if it were amalgam may not
be the optimal way to efficiently achieve desired
results; instead, we can take advantage of the
physical properties of the resin, such as its flow
characteristics, to efficiently create restorations.
One way to do so is to use a preformed matrix
and heated composite to injection-mold the
composite resin.
Matrix options
Anterior matrices are typically made of metal or
plastic, each with its advantages and disadvantages,2 and are either sectional or full-contour.
Sectional matrices, as their name implies, shapes
only a portion of the tooth; common examples
include Bioclear, Fusion Garrison Anterior
(Garrison), and flat Mylar. Full-contour matrices,
meanwhile, traverse from one proximal surface
to the other and include the gingival area. Some
common examples are the Unica (Polydentia),
Uveneer (Ultradent) and Greater Curve matrices.
There are several advantages in using a metal
full-contour matrix over a plastic one. For example,
the matrix can be stabilized with the use
of a retainer, and the stiff metal can traverse
irregular or wide contacts more easily than a
plastic matrix. However, because light will not
penetrate the metal surface, care must be taken
when polymerizing the composite resin. As such,
modifications to the matrix will be made to help
facilitate a more complete curing of the material.
The Greater Curve band, aka the “Banana
Band,” is an aggressively profiled matrix, especially
when compared with a standard Tofflemire
matrix (Fig. 1). This curvature creates a tight
seal in the cervical region while also accessing adjacent tooth surfaces, resulting in tight interproximal
contacts.3 Though originally created to
solve issues with posterior Class II restorations,
it has proven to be valuable in simplifying anterior
composite protocols as well.
Fig. 1
Heated composite and injection molding
There are several advantages in using heated
composite over an ambient temperature one,
including greater degree of conversion,4 marginal
adaptation,5 lower polymerization stress6 and
decreased viscosity.7 Because the material will
flow better and more quickly, an appropriately
shaped and adapted matrix will help to form an
anatomical restoration.
While many options exist for composite
heaters, they should be able to heat composite
between 150–160 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature
range has been shown to not adversely
affect the pulp.8 Commercially available heaters
include the Compex HD and Calacet (both from
Addent) and HeatSync (Bioclear).
Some methods of injection molding, such
as the Bioclear method, use a combination of
uncured bonding agent, heated flowable and
heated paste composite, which are co-cured in
a preformed Mylar matrix.9 Other methods use
a heavily filled flowable composite and a clear
silicone template.10
Case study
A 56-year-old patient without any medical conditions
presented to the office dissatisfied with the
appearance of her upper left front tooth (Fig. 2).
Clinical examination revealed two cavities on
#10: a mesial Class IV and a distal Class III, both
extending to the facial surface. No signs of pulpal
inflammation or necrosis were observed, and the
tooth responded positively to thermal stimuli.
To begin the procedure, the patient received
anesthesia with 1.8 cc of 3% mepivacaine without
epinephrine. Moisture reduction, tongue
retraction and keeping the patient’s mouth open
were achieved using a small Isolite device.
Caries and undermined enamel were removed
using a round diamond bur. An irregular pattern
bevel was created on the cavosurface line angle
with a flame diamond bur, enabling better blending
of the composite with the tooth structure
and enhancing the adhesive interface for composite
bonding (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
A Greater Curve matrix band was placed
around #10, with the matrix retainer positioned
palatally. The band’s curvature provided an
excellent subgingival seal, isolation, easy access
and improved visibility (Fig. 4). Wooden wedges
were inserted on both proximal surfaces to
secure the position of the matrix band and prevent
unwanted material ingress (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Using a diamond football bur, the matrix band
was trimmed from the facial following the scallop
of the gingival tissue, leaving 3–4 mm of the matrix
coronal to the tissue. This is an essential step to the
protocol, because it will help the heated compule
achieve backpressure for injection molding and will
allow adequate light-curing of the material (Fig. 6).
Next, the tooth surface was etched with 35%
phosphoric acid to create microscopic roughness on
the enamel and dentin, facilitating micromechanical
retention of the bonding agent (Fig. 7). Two applications
of a fifth-generation bonding agent (Prime
& Bond NT, Dentsply) were applied and light-cured
after air-thinning (Fig. 8).
A heated flowable composite (Filtek Supreme
Ultra Flowable, 3M) was placed in the most apical
aspect of the matrix without curing (Fig. 9). Subsequently,
a heated paste composite (A2B, Filtek
Supreme Ultra, 3M) was applied (Fig. 10). Excess
composite was removed with a microbrush (Fig. 11).
It is important to remove the flowable and paste
composite before curing to facilitate removal of the
matrix band and simplify shaping. The composite
was then polymerized (Fig. 12).
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
The matrix band was removed and the restoration
received additional light-curing from multiple
angles. A final cure was performed under a DeOx gel (Ultradent) to ensure complete polymerization
and removal of the oxygen-inhibited layer
(Fig. 13). Excess composite was removed, and the
restoration was shaped using a flame-shaped
bur. A combination of discs and polishers was
used for the final finishing, achieving a natural
appearance consistent with the adjacent teeth
(Fig. 14).
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Overall, the case presented involved the successful
restoration of Tooth #10 using appropriate
techniques and materials to achieve an aesthetically
pleasing and functional outcome.
Authors’ note: We wish to thank Dr. Dennis Brown
for his guidance in the writing of this article.
References
1. Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. “Secondary Caries: A Literature Review With Case
Reports.” Quintessence Int. 2000 Mar; 31(3):165–179.
2. Volker AR, Kouros P, Köken S. “Matrixing Strategies for the Anterior
and Facial Surfaces.” Dentaltown. March 2022; 27(3):42–46.
3. “Greater Curve Matrix Class II Restoration.” Dentistry Today.
Accessible at dentistrytoday.com.
4. Daronch M, Rueggeberg FA, De Goes MF. “Monomer Conversion of
Pre-Heated Composite.” J Dent Res. 2005 Jul; 84(7):663–667.
5. Fróes-Salgado NR, Silva LM, Kawano Y, Francci C, Reis A, Loguercio
AD. “Composite Pre-Heating: Effects on Marginal Adaptation, Degree
of Conversion and Mechanical Properties.” Dent Mater. 2010 Sep;
26(9):908–914.
6. Calheiros FC, Daronch M, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR. “Effect of
Temperature on Composite Polymerization Stress and Degree of Conversion.” Dent Mater. 2014 Jun; 30(6):613–618.
7. Lucey S, Lynch CD, Ray NJ, Burke FM, Hannigan A. “Effect of Pre-
Heating on the Viscosity and Microhardness of a Resin Composite.” J
Oral Rehabil. 2010 Apr; 37(4):278–282.
8. Daronch M, Rueggeberg FA, Hall G, De Goes MF. “Effect of
Composite Temperature on In-Vitro Intrapulpal Temperature Rise.”
Dent Mater. 2007 Oct; 23(10):1283–1288.
9. Clark D. “Injection Overmolding Aesthetics and Strength, Part I:
Finishing Orthodontic Cases Using Direct Composite.” Dent Today.
2014 Aug; 33(8):86–89.
10. Geštakovski D. “The Injectable Composite Resin Technique: Minimally
Invasive Reconstruction of Esthetics and Function. Clinical Case
Report With 2-Year Follow-Up.” Quintessence Int. 2019; 50(9):712–719.
Dr. Arthur R. Volker graduated from the Columbia University School of
Dental and Oral Surgery. He is a member of the continuing education
committee for the New York State Academy of General Dentistry. Volker
is a diplomate of the World Congress of Minimally Invasive Dentistry,
and is a fellow of the Academy of General Dentistry and the American
College of Dentists. He has also published articles and lectures on
such topics as cosmetic dentistry, minimally invasive dentistry, dental
materials and dental implants. He practices in Sunnyside, New York.