Main Article Content
Aim: Assessing three different matrix systems in terms of their ability to create ideal contacts and contours along with patient comfort.
Material and Methodology: After taking approval from the college ethical committee and parent’s consent, a total of 120 patients, aged 4-8 years were treated based on selection criteria after randomly dividing them into 3 groups by computer randomization method. Group 1 used Tofflemire system, Group 2 used Unimatrix R sectional system, and Group 3 used FenderMate system for restoring proximal contacts of two surface lesions in primary molars. Time taken for placement of the system along with proximal contacts, proximal overhangs and patient comfort were assessed at the end of the procedure and a chi-square test was used for statistical analysis.
Results: Maximum optimal contacts were seen with Unimatrix R system and overhangs were absent for Tofflemire system. Also, there were no significant differences regarding the patient comfort among the three groups. The FenderMate system took the least time for application followed by Unimatrix R and Tofflemire system.
Conclusion: Sectional matrices were favoured for optimal contacts, circumferential matrices were determined to be more superior in terms of preference and one piece sectional matrix system showed time efficiency.
Raghu R, Srinivasan R. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(4):330-336.
Loomans BAC. Proximal Contact Tightness of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Radboud University; 2006.
Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Ritter AV. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed. St Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013.
FenderWedge and FenderMate: a new standard for Class II preparations. Inside Dent. 2008;4(9).
Parfitt GJ. Conditions influencing the incidence of occlusal and interstitial caries in children. J Dent Child. 1956;23:31-9.
Varpio M. Caries prevalence and therapy in the deciduous dentition from 3 to 8 years. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2010;39(5):307-312.
Gomes IA, Mariz DC, Borges AH, et al. In vivo evaluation of proximal resin composite restorations performed using three different matrix systems. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16(8):643–647.
Patel MC, Bhatt RK, Makwani DA, Dave LD, Raj VS. Comparative evaluation of marginal seal integrity of three bulk-fill composite materials in Class II cavities: An In vitro study. Adv Hum Bio 2018;8:201-5.
Bauer JG, Crispin BJ. Evolution of the matrix for Class 2 restorations. Oper Dent. 1986;(Suppl 4):1-37.
Dindukurthi MK, Setty JV, Srinivasan I, et al. Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):70–74.
Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(6):748–751.
Wenzel, A. (2004). Bitewing and Digital Bitewing Radiography for Detection of Caries Lesions. Journal of dental research. 83 Spec No C. C72-5.
Barry M. Owens, Jeffrey G. Phebus. An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems. GENERAL DENTISTRY September/October 2016