Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Context: Sectional matrix systems, namely, Garrison and Bioclear with contact rings, are valuable aids to establish proximal contact tightness and contours in Class II composite restorations when compared with the circumferential matrix system Tofflemire. Aims: This study aimed to compare the proximal contact and contours of Class II restoration in premolars and molars restored with Tofflemire, Garrison, and Bioclear matrix system by FDI criteria of approximal anatomical form using floss or 25-µm metal blade and radiographic examination. Subjects and Methods: Sixty Class II patients were selected, and a preoperative bitewing radiograph was taken. Initially, caries removal was done by round diamond bur, followed by 245 carbide bur. Samples were divided randomly into three groups based on the type of matrix system used for restoration. Group 1 ( n = 20): Tofflemire, Group 2 ( n = 20): Garrison matrix system, and Group 3 ( n = 20): Bioclear matrix system. Matrix systems were applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and composite restoration was done. The clinical evaluation of proximal contact and contour was done by a blinded observer immediately after placement of composite restoration using FDI criteria by passing dental floss or 25-µm metal blade, whereas marginal gaps and overhangs were checked using a radiograph. Results were statistically analyzed. Statistical Analysis Used: The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows, Version 19.0). Descriptive statistics was calculated as frequency and percentage. The comparison of characteristics of the contact points, contour, and radiographic examination was carried out using the Chi-square test. Multiple comparisons were done by comparing column proportions with Bonferroni adjustments. The level of significance for the present study was fixed at P Garrison > Tofflemire). Comparison of contours showed normal contours with Garrison (50%), Bioclear (50%), and Tofflemire (15%) matrix system (Bioclear = Garrison > Tofflemire). In radiographic examination, harmonious transitions between the restoration and the tooth were similar in Garrison (30%) and Bioclear (30%) compared to the Tofflemire (15%) matrix system (Bioclear = Garrison > Tofflemire). Conclusions: Garrison and Bioclear sectional matrix systems established superior contacts and contours than the Tofflemire circumferential system.
Sankhyan et al. (Sun,) studied this question.