International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Restoration of Proximal Contacts in Decayed Primary Molars Using Three Different Matrix Systems in Children Aged 5–9 Years: An In Vivo Study

Murali K Dindukurthi, Jyothsna V Setty, Ila Srinivasan, Anjana M Melwani, Kuthpady Manasa Hegde, Sreeraksha Radhakrishna

Keywords : FenderMate, Pro-Matrix, Proximal contacts and contours, T-band

Citation Information : Dindukurthi MK, Setty JV, Srinivasan I, Melwani AM, Hegde KM, Radhakrishna S. 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1929

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aims and objectives: Proximal contacts and their interdigitation through occlusal contact with opposing teeth play a major role in children, for the eruption of permanent teeth into normal position. Determining the ideal matrix band system for proximal restorations helps in the construction of contacts and contours. This study is designed to determine the most suitable matrix band system for proximal restorations. Materials and methods: A total of 96 proximal cavities were selected among patients aged 5–9 years and were equally divided into three groups. Group I: T-band, group II: ProMatrix, and group III: FenderMate. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were taken to evaluate carious lesions and restorations. Class II cavity was prepared and glass ionomer restorations were done using matrix systems. The efficacy of matrix bands was evaluated through the operator\'s questionnaire and postoperative radiographs. Results: No statistical significance was found between the three matrix bands but FenderMate showed few clinical drawbacks that were statistically significant (p < 0.005). Interpretation and conclusion: Matrix systems used in this study showed good results in restoring proximal contacts and contours. FenderMate showed few drawbacks when compared with the other two matrix systems. None of the matrix systems used in the present study were able to create 100% accurate proximal contacts and contours.

PDF Share
  1. Ramya R, Raghu S. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):330–336. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87192.
  2. Chuang SF, Su KC, Wang CH, et al. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction. J Dent 2011;39(6):448–456. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.001.
  3. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1068.
  4. Shivakumar AT, Kalgeri SH, Dhir S. Clinical considerations in restorative dentistry - a narrative review. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2015;7(2):122–129. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0754.164377.
  5. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, et al. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015;40(2):134–143. DOI: 10.2341/13-239-C.
  6. Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, et al. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars 18-month results. Am J Dent 2013;26(6):351–355.
  7. Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, et al. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 2002;27(5):423–429.
  8. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1735.
  9. Hancock EB, Mayo CV, Schwab RR, et al. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1980;51(8):445–449. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1980.51.8.445.
  10. Jansson L, Ehnevid H, Lindskog S, et al. Proximal restorations and periodontal status. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21(9):577–582. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1994.tb00746.x.
  11. Gilmore N, Sheiham A. Overhanging dental restorations and periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1971;42(1):8–12. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1971.42.1.8.
  12. Kampouropoulos D, Paximada C, Loukidis M, et al. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35(4):454–462. DOI: 10.2341/09-272-L.
  13. Allison PJ, Schwartz S. Interproximal contact points and proximal caries in posterior primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2003;25(4):334–340.
  14. Marquezan M, Marquezan M, Faraco-Junior IM, et al. Association between occlusal anomalies and dental caries in 3 to 5-year-old Brazilian children. J Orthod 2011;38(1):8–14. DOI: 10.1179/14653121141191.
  15. Novaes TF, Matos R, Braga MM, et al. Performance of a pen-type laser fluorescence device and conventional methods in detecting approximal caries lesions in primary teeth–in vivo study. Caries Res 2009;43(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1159/000189705.
  16. Novaes TF, Matos R, Celiberti P, et al. The influence of interdental spacing on the detection of proximal caries lesions in primary teeth. Braz Oral Res 2012;26(4):293–299. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242012000400002.
  17. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, et al. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 2006;34(4):292–297. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.008.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.