Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Aim: To evaluate clinically and radiographically the performance of two sectional matrix systems (TOR VM 1.398 and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™) versus one circumferential matrix system (Tofflemire system) for 12 months. Materials and methods: 39 class II cavities were prepared. The teeth were equally divided into three groups (n=13) according to the type of applied matrix system: Group 1: TOR VM (TOR VM dental manufacturing company, Russia), Group 2: Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ (Garrison Dental Solutions, USA), Group 3: Tofflemire Matrix Retainer Universal (Produits Dentaires S.A., Switzerland). All teeth were restored using bulk-fill resin composite (X-tra fil, Voco, Germany). The restorations were evaluated clinically and radiographically at baseline, 6-, and 12-month. The proximal contacts were categorized following the FDI recommendations as optimum, tight, or open. The proximal overhangs were assessed using digital bitewing radiographs. The proximal overhangs were categorized as absent, positive, or negative. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test, followed by multiple z-tests with Bonferroni correction. Results: The Tofflemire matrix retainer group showed higher percentages of restorations with tight or open contacts in comparison to other groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The percentages of restorations free of overhangs in TOR VM and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ were found to be significantly higher than that of the Tofflemire matrix retainer group (p<0.001).Conclusions: The restorations placed with TOR VM and Composi-Tight 3D Fusion™ showed proximal contacts with optimum tightness and contour as compared to the circumferential matrix system
Abdelaziz et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: