ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Class II cavity preparations in restorative dentistry pose a risk of iatrogenic damage to adjacent teeth as they could increase their susceptibility to caries and the need for additional restorative procedures. While previous research has explored this issue through in vitro and limited in vivo investigations, the direct clinical observation of proximal protection usage to prevent iatrogenic damage during class II cavity preparations is still limited. AIM: This in vivo study aimed to assess the prevalence of proximal protection usage and extent of iatrogenic damage induced to adjacent surfaces upon occurrence during class II cavity preparations via direct visual inspection under magnification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from restorative dentistry consultants supervising fourth-year undergraduate students. Information regarding cavity preparations, proximal protection usage, and iatrogenic damage was gathered through an electronic evaluation form via direct clinical observations once class II cavity preparations were finished. Statistical analyses, including ordinal logistic regression models, were employed to investigate associations and compute odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We examined 82 teeth adjacent to class II cavity preparations in in vivo settings. The prevalence of proximal protection use was 72%, while the prevalence of iatrogenic damage was 17.1% overall, increasing to 47.8% when not using protection and 5.1% when using protective measures. Polishing and restoration of the induced damage were the primary management approaches. The use of protective measures, particularly matrix bands, significantly reduced the risk of iatrogenic damage (P < 0.05). Several factors, including arch, tooth surface, time, operator gender, and the state of the adjacent tooth before treatment, were examined but did not yield statistically significant associations. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that most undergraduate dental students use proximal protection during class II cavity preparations, which are significant in reducing iatrogenic damage to the adjacent tooth. However, the literature shows that general practitioners often do not use proximal protection. The use of proximal protection should be reinforced and even required for the successful and safe treatment of proximal cavities. Future research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to understand the barriers to the use of proximal protection and develop interventions to promote its adoption.
