Proximal Contact Tightness of Direct Class II Composite Resin Restorations with Sectional Versus Circumferential Matrix Systems: A Systematic Review
Keywords:
Class II restorations, sectional matrix, circumferential matrix, proximal contact tightness, composite resin, restorative dentistryAbstract
Background: Achieving optimal proximal contact tightness in Class II composite resin restorations is essential to prevent food impaction, secondary caries, and periodontal complications. Matrix systems play a crucial role in shaping proximal contours, with sectional and circumferential designs being the most commonly used. However, clinical outcomes vary depending on the matrix system employed, and a systematic comparison is needed.
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sectional versus circumferential matrix systems in achieving proximal contact tightness in direct Class II composite restorations.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024564438). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing sectional and circumferential matrices in human or extracted teeth with quantitative measures of contact tightness were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials and a modified QUIN tool for in vitro studies. Data were synthesized narratively.
Results: Nine studies were included, comprising three randomized controlled trials and six in vitro studies. Across all studies, sectional matrix systems produced significantly higher proximal contact tightness values (6.1–8.3 N) compared to circumferential systems (4.3–5.5 N). Sectional matrices also demonstrated superior anatomical adaptation and clinical satisfaction.
Conclusion: Sectional matrix systems consistently outperformed circumferential matrices in achieving clinically acceptable proximal contact tightness in Class II composite restorations. Adoption of sectional matrices in clinical practice may enhance restoration quality, reduce complications, and improve patient outcomes.
Downloads
References
Jackson RD. Class II composite resin restorations: faster, easier, predictable. Br Dent J. 2016;221:623-31.
Patras M, Doukoudakis S. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management. Oper Dent. 2013;38:119-24.
Kapoor B, Ahmed L. The war between amalgam and composite: a critical review. J Oral Res Rev. 2021;13:133-8.
Hinton O. Proximal contact tightness for Class II direct composite resin restorations: a literature review. Dent Update. 2021;48:733-40.
Kim S, Yi YJ, Park YS. Food impaction in dentistry: revisited. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2023;21:b4172837. doi:10.3290/j.ohpd.b4172837
Jernberg GR, Bakdash MB, Keenan KM. Relationship between proximal tooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1983;54:529-33.
Agarwal A, Bhartiya S, Sharma D, Sharma Y. Matrix systems in dentistry: a review. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2023;11:66-71.
Owens BM, Phebus JG. An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems. Gen Dent. 2016;64:64-70.
Al-Otaibi F, Al-Zughaibi M, Al-Otaibi G. The usage of matrix band by dental students in Class II restorations. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2019;7:69-74.
AlSheikh R, Almulhim KS, Abdulkader M, Haridy R, Bugshan AS, Aldamanhouri R, Elgezawi M. Toward a clinically reliable Class II resin composite restoration: a cross‐sectional study into the current clinical practice among dentists in Saudi Arabia. Int J Dent. 2022;2022:2691376. doi:10.1155/2022/2691376
Bailey O. Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth. Br Dent J. 2021;231:547-55.
Tugwell P, Tovey D. PRISMA 2020. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:A5-6.
Eldridge S, Campbell M, Dahota A, Giraudeau B, Higgins J, Reeves B, et al. Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0): additional considerations for cluster-randomized trials. Cochrane Methods Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(suppl 1).
Smit S, van der Vecht B, van Wermeskerken F, Streefkerk JW. QUIN: Providing integrated analysis support to crime investigators. In: 2016 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC). IEEE; 2016. p. 120-3.
Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM, Burgersdijk RC, Dörfer CE. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent. 2006;34:292-7.
Kampouropoulos D, Paximada C, Loukidis M, Kakaboura A. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35:454-62.
Saber MH, Loomans AC, Zohairy AE, Dörfer CE, El-Badrawy W. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of Class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35:37-43.
Wolff D, Hahn P, Ding P, Maier-Kraus T, Frese C, Dörfer C, et al. Proximal contact tightness between direct-composite additions in the posterior dentition: an in vitro investigation. Oper Dent. 2012;37:272-80.
Wirsching E, Loomans BA, Klaiber B, Dörfer CE. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent. 2011;39:386-90.
Souqiyyeh D. Comparison of two different types of matrix systems in Class II composite restorations. EC Dent Sci. 2018;17:177-83.
Shaalan OO, Ibrahim SH. Clinical evaluation of sectional matrix versus circumferential matrix for reproduction of proximal contact by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: a randomized controlled trial. J Int Oral Health. 2021;13:10-6.
Tolba ZO, Oraby E, Abd El Aziz PM. Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:535. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03309-6
Abdelaziz MM, Fahim SE, Abdelwahed AG. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of sectional versus circumferential matrix systems: a one-year randomized clinical trial. Egypt Dent J. 2024;70:1923-34.
Ibrahim I, Helal H, Ibrahim SH, Riad M. 24 months clinical prospective of proximal restorations with repeated preheating bulk fill composite up to ten cycles: randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2024;14:23966. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-47830-3
Mishra L, Dash G, Govind S, Jena SP, Pattanaik S, Kumar M. Different techniques to establish occlusal anatomy of posterior teeth with composite: a review. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14:8175-9.
Tavangar SM, Davalloo RT, Darabi F, Basti HA. Case report: a simple technique for creating an improved pre-contoured matrix band. J Dent Sch Guilan Univ Med Sci. 2023;12:19-23.
Nahar N, Bashar AK, Gafur MA, Jeorge DH. Sectional matrix system in reconstruction of proximal contact in class II resin restoration. Update Dent Coll J. 2021;11:16-9.
Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Huysmans MC. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation rings. Oper Dent. 2012;37:21-7.
Bailey O, Shand B, Ellis I. Class II composite restoration technique teaching: a randomised controlled crossover laboratory‐based trial involving a novel ringless sectional matrix technique. Eur J Dent Educ. 2023;27:963-73.
Ramesh S, Antony DP. Comparative evaluation of matricing techniques used in Class II amalgam restorations: a retrospective study. Turk Online J Qual Inq. 2021;12(5).
White RH, Geissberger MJ. Additional uses for the classic matrix band. Oper Dent. 2007;32:412-4.
AlTowayan SA. Proximal contour of Class II composite restoration: a literature review. J Int Dent Med Res. 2023;16:865-72.
Peumans M, Politano G, Bazos P, Severino D, Van Meerbeek B. Effective protocol for daily high quality direct posterior composite restorations: the layering and finishing protocol. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22:597-613.
Almushayti M, Arjumand B. Operators’ ease and satisfaction in restoring Class II cavities with sectional matrix versus circumferential matrix system at Qassim University Dental Clinics. Cureus. 2022;14:e21240. doi:10.7759/cureus.21240
Rao M, Vanamala N, Prasad BK, Rao HM. Sectioning through sectional matricing techniques: an in-vivo comparative evaluation of post-operative sensitivity.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
