Preference And Attitude Of Dental Students And Dental Practitioners Regarding Different Types Of Matrix Bands At Qassim University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i8.7635Keywords:
Matrix band systems, Auto matrix, Tofflemire, sectional matrix, restorative dentistryAbstract
Background: Matrix bands are essential tools in restorative dentistry, aiding in the achievement of proper contour, contact, and marginal adaptation during Class II restorations. Preferences in matrix systems may vary based on the practitioner’s clinical experience, educational level, and gender, influencing restoration outcomes.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronically distributed questionnaire targeting Saudi dental students and practitioners in Qassim who had begun clinical practice. The survey collected data on demographics, frequency of use, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and clinical indications of matrix band systems. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences in preferences across gender and academic levels.
Results: A total of 112 participants responded, including 68 males (60.7%) and 44 females (39.3%). Fourth-year students constituted the largest subgroup (30.4%). Sectional matrix bands were most preferred for simple Class II restorations (51.8%) due to better contact and patient comfort. Auto matrix bands were favored in complex cases (50%), with a statistically significant preference among males (p = 0.012). Tofflemire bands, although commonly used in early training, were considered less suitable for complex restorations. Gender- and level-based differences in matrix band preference were statistically significant, particularly in simple and complex cases (p-values = 0.003 and 0.001, respectively).
Conclusion: Matrix band preferences among dental students and practitioners in Qassim vary notably based on gender and level of training. The significant inclination of male practitioners toward the Auto matrix band, and the reliance of early-year students on Tofflemire bands, suggests evolving preferences with experience. These insights can guide curriculum development and continuing education to ensure well-rounded proficiency in restorative techniques
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kumaran T, Antony SD. Knowledge, Attitude, Practice on Different Matrix Systems Used for Class 2 Composite Restorations Among Dental Students. International journal of health sciences.;6(S2):4295-301.
Ahmad M, Durr-E-Sadaf, Gaikwad R, Arjumand B. Comparison of two different matrix band systems in restoring two surface cavities in posterior teeth done by senior undergraduate students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia: A randomized controlled clinical trial [Internet]. Vol. 29, Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2018. p. 459.
Çelik E, Göktepe B. Optical Properties of Novel Resin Matrix Ceramic Systems at Different Thicknesses [Internet]. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2019. p. 176–84.
Sadaf D, Ahmad MZ. Comparison of two different matrix band systems in restoring two surface cavities in posterior teeth done by senior undergraduate students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.
Shaalan OO. Evaluation of matrix band systems for posterior proximal restorations among Egyptian dentists: a cross-sectional survey. Acta Stomatologica Croatica. 2020 Dec;54(4):392.
Jo D-W, Kwon M-J, Kim J-H, Kim Y-K, Yi Y-J. Evaluation of adja cent tooth displacement in the posterior implant restoration with proximal contact loss by superimposition of digital models. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;11(2):88-94.
Khan FR, Umer F, Rahman M. Comparison of proximal contact and contours of premolars restored with composite restoration using circumferential matrix band with and without separation ring: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2013;3(1):7–13.
Saber MH, Loomans AC, Zohairy A El, Dörfer CE, El-Badrawy W. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of Class II resin compos ite restorations. Oper Dent. Jan-Feb 2010;35(1):37-43.
Raghu R, Srinivasan R. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14:330.
Nelson SJ. Wheeler's Dental Anatomy, Physiology and Occlusion: 1st Edition Sae-E-Book. Elsevier India, 2015.
Wirsching E, Loomans BAC, Klaiber B, Dörfer CE. Influence of ma trix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface pos terior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent. 2011 May;39(5):386 90.
Eissmann HF, Radke RA, Noble WH. Physiologic design criteria for fixed dental restorations. Dent Clin North Am 1971; 15:543-568.
X Keogh TP, Bertolotti RL. Creating tight, anatomically correct interproximal contacts. Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45:83-102.
Yetto, R. 2003. Achieving tight contacts in Class II direct resin restorations. Journal of Cosmetic Dentistry 19 1:28–34.
Brackett, W. W. and D. A. Covey. 2000. Resistance to condensation of “condensable” resin composites as evaluated by a mechanical test. Operative Dentistry 25 5:424–426.
Patekar VR, Mankar N, Burde K, Achanta A. Choice of matrix system in dentistry. J Res Med Dent Sci. 2022;10:120-6.
Kovács-Ivácson AC, Stoica AM, Pop M, Dakó T. Use of different matrix systems in the treatment of simple caries. ACTA STOMATOLOGICA MARISIENSIS. 2018:12.
Ian Douglas CW. Matrix bands–their use and sterilisation in general practice. British Dental Journal. 2002 Jan;192(1):32-.
Lowe AH, Burke FJ, McHugh S, Bagg J. A survey of the use of matrix bands and their decontamination in general dental practice. British dental journal. 2002 Jan;192(1):40-2.
Rouisse KM, McClelland J, Gilbert GH. Gender differences in practice patterns for diagnosis and treatment of dental caries: Findings from The Dental PBRN. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Apr;142(4):429-40.
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.
