International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles


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

Varshini Rajagopal

Keywords : Class II restoration, Contact point, Matrix system

Citation Information : Rajagopal V. 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2060

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare two matrix systems (circumferential and sectional) based on clinical efficiency and patient acceptability for placement of visible light cure composite resin restorative material in a Class II cavity in primary molars. Materials and methods: Thirty children with bilateral Class II cavities of age-group 5–9 years were selected. A split-mouth comparative experimental study was conducted at Manav Rachna Dental College, India. Cavities were restored using either circumferential or sectional matrix band system. The child upon completion of the treatment filled the subject preference questionnaire. Time assessment was done for matrix system placement. Contact points were evaluated using dental floss as open or closed. Results: Time required to place sectional matrices was more (125.30 ± 29.40) than required for circumferential matrices (117.20 ± 38.94). The sectional matrices group has more ideal contacts (23) (76.7%) than the circumferential matrices group (16) (53.3%). About 70% of the children pointed discomfort toward the sectional matrices. Children in this study accepted circumferential matrices to be more comfortable than the sectional matrices group. Conclusion: The circumferential matrices group was more time efficient compared to the sectional matrices group. However, sectional matrices resulted in a greater number of restorations with ideal contacts. Based on the preference circumferential matrix band system has been found superior to sectional matrix band system. Clinical significance:This study was conducted to find a better matrix system in case of pediatric patients. Circumferential matrices were found to be more superior with respect to preference and time efficiency and sectional matrices were preferred for ideal contacts.

  1. Dinesh S, Priyadarshini S, Mohan S. Comparing metal and transparent matrices in preventing gingival overhang with different resin material in Class II restorations – an SEM study. Pravara Med Rev 2012;2(2):4–9.
  2. Boksman L. Matrix systems and Class II composite resins. Oral Health 2010;28–34.
  3. Patras M, Doukoudakis S. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management. Oper Dent 2013;38(2):119–124. DOI: 10.2341/11-224-T
  4. Raghu R, Srinivasan R. Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restoration. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):330–336. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87192
  5. Gilmour AS, James T, Byrant S, et al. An in vitro study on the use of circumferential matrix bands in the placement of Class II amalgam restorations. Br Dent J Sep 2008;205(5):221. DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2008.135
  6. Innes NPT, Evans DJP. Managing caries in primary teeth. Br Dent J 2014;7–14. Doi: 10.1038/bdjteam.2014.118
  7. Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I, et al. The design and analysis of split-mouth studies: What statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med 2009;28(28):3740–3782. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3634
  8. Agarwal SK, Jhingran R, Bains VK, et al. Patient-centered evaluation of microsurgical management of gingival recession using coronally advanced flap with platelet-rich fibrin or amnion membrane: A comparative analysis. Eur J Dent 2016;10(1):121–133. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175686
  9. Alonso de la Peña V, Pernas García R, Pérez García R. Sectional matrix: Step-by-step directions for their clinical use. Br Dent J 2016;220(1):11–14. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.18
  10. Brady LA. Pre-wedging for posterior composites. Restorative dentistry [Internet], 2011. Available at:
  11. Clark D. The seven deadly sins of traditional Class II restorations. Dent Today 2017;36(1):119–121.
  12. Anfe TEDA, Arakaki Y, Nakamura DM, et al. Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown size of deciduous teeth from a tooth bank in Brazil. Braz Dent Sci 2012;15(1)74-78. DOI: 10.14295/BDS.2012.V15I1.761
  13. Cho SD, Browning WD, Walton KS. Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring. Oper Dent 2010;35(5):587–591. DOI: 10.2341/09-338-T
  14. Durr-E-Sadaf, Ahmad MZ, Gaikwad RN, Gaikwad RN, et al. 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. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29(4):459–464. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_26_17
  15. Sykes LM, Evans WG, Gani F. “In my mouth”: Part 11: Ethical concerns regarding dental over-treatment and under-treatment. S Afr Dent J 2017;72(6):281–283. DOI: 10.17159/2519-0105/2017/v72no6a9
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.