• Muhammad Asif Operative Dentistry, Rehamat Memorial Hospital, Abbottabad
  • Imran Khattak Oral Biology, Peshawar Dental College, Peshawar
  • Asim Qureshi Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ayub Dental Section, Abbottabad
  • Muhammad Zain Operative dentistry and Endodontics, Peshawar Dental College, Peshawar
  • Naveed Aslam Operative Dentistry, Rehamat Memorial Hospital, Abbottabad
  • Muhammad Izaz Khan Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan



Background: The reconstruction of proximal defects with tight contacts has always been a challenge for dental clinicians, especially with composite material. Recent literature shows that the most frequently used matrix systems for restoration of proximal cavities are circumferential or sectional matrix band systems. The objective of this study was to compare the contact tightness that is achieved with these two matrix band systems when using composite material. Methods: A total of 30 patients, i.e., 60 cavities were selected in this quasi-experimental study. Since patients with two cavities in the posterior teeth were selected. Both the cavities where restored with circumferential system, i.e., Tofflemire and sectional matrix band system, i.e., Palodent plus on the same appointment. Hence both systems were used in every patient and then contact tightness assessed based on an evaluation criterion, i.e., Fédération Dentaire Internationale clinical criteria for evaluation of contact in direct and indirect restorations. To make a comparison between the two systems chi square test was used and p<0.05. Results: The mean age of the patients in the study was 31 years (SD, 7.59 years) with range from 18 to 45 years. Most of the contact tightness in Palodent matrix system was score 1 (n=33, 55%) and score 2 (n=17, 28.3%) while in Tofflemire was score 4 (n=28, 46.7%) and score 5 (n=19, 31.7%). Statistical analysis showed significance (p=.037) between Palodent matrix system contact tightness and Tofflemire. Conclusion: The sectional matrix band system was statistically superior to the circumferential matrix band system in achieving a tighter contact for class II composite restorations


Almushayti M, Arjumand B. Operators’ Ease and Satisfaction in Restoring Class II Cavities With Sectional Matrix Versus Circumferential Matrix System at Qassim University Dental Clinics. Cureus 2022;14(1):e20957.

Babu BV, Sandeep AH. Matrix Band Used for Restoration of Class Ii Amalgam Cavities in University Set Up. Spec Ugdym 2022;1(43):10374–84.

Deepak S, Nivedhitha M. Proximal contact tightness between two different restorative materials–An in vitro study. J Pharma Educat Res 2017;7(2):153–6.

Aminoroaya A, Neisiany RE, Khorasani SN, Panahi P, Das O, Madry H, et al. A review of dental composites: Challenges, chemistry aspects, filler influences, and future insights. Compos Part B Eng 2021;216:108852.

Shaalan OO. Evaluation of matrix band systems for posterior proximal restorations among Egyptian dentists: a cross-sectional survey. Acta Stomatol Croat 2020;54(4):392–400.

Aslam M, Yousaf A, Bhangar F, Zahra SF, Iftikhar N, Khan LS. Most commonly used matrix band system for class II restoration. Pak Oral Dent J 2021;41(1):32–4.

Gomes I, Mariz D, Borges A, Tonetto M, Firoozmand L, Kuga C, et al. In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems. J Comtemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):643–7.

Malik TA, Malik TA, Mahmood AS, Naz SH, Sajid MU. Choice of matrix system for class II composite restoration; a cross sectional survey among the dentists of Multan Dental College. Pak J Med Health Sci 2020;14(4):829–31.

Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review. J Dent 2018;68:1–9.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Invest 2010;14(4):349–66.

Maillet C, Decup F, Dantony E, Iwaz J, Chevalier C, Gueyffier F, et al. Selected and simplified FDI criteria for assessment of restorations. J Dent 2022;122:104109.

Loomans B, Opdam N, Roeters F, Bronkhorst E, Burgersdijk R. Comparison of proximal contacts of Class II resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2006;31(6):688–93.

Santos M. A restorative approach for class ii resin composite restorations: a two-year follow-up. Oper Dent 2015;40(1):19–24.

Sadaf DE, Ahmad MZ, Gaikwad RN, 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. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29(4):459–64.

Bailey O. Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth. Br Dent J 2021;231(9):547–55.

Farah RF, Al-Harbi KS. The use of sectional matrix in direct restoration of a structurally compromised posterior tooth: a clinical technique. Quintessence Int 2019;50(9):680–4.

Kanzow P, Büttcher AF, Wilson NH, Lynch CD, Blum IR. Contemporary teaching of posterior composites at dental schools in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. J Dent 2020;96:103321.

Pucci CR, Torres CR, Abdalla AI. Matrix and Wedge Systems. Mod Oper Dent 2020;2020:261–88.

Peumans M, Venuti P, Politano G, Van Meerbeek B. Effective protocol for daily high-quality direct posterior composite restorations. The interdental anatomy of the class-2 composite restoration. J Adhes Dent 2021;23(1):21–34.

Hinton O. Proximal contact tightness for Class II direct composite resin restorations: a literature review. Dent Update 2021;48(9):733–40.

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.

Alonso V, Caserio M, Darriba IL. Use of transparent tips for obtaining tight proximal contacts in direct class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 2019;44(5):446–51.

Khan A, Fatima Z, Siddiqui S, Khan R, Chowdhary D, Anwar SZ. Comparison Of Contact And Contour For Posterior Teeth Using Three Different Matrix System–An In Vivo Study. J Pharm Negat Results 2022;15:2167–80.

Brook AH, Griffin RC, Townsend G, Levisianos Y, Russell J, Smith RN. Variability and patterning in permanent tooth size of four human ethnic groups. Arch Oral Biol 2009;54(Suppl 1):S79–8.

Kassab MM, Cohen RE. The etiology and prevalence of gingival recession. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(2):220–5.

Seemakurthy SS, Nuvvula S, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Prevalence of gingival recession and associated etiological factors among the school children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2022;40(3):311–6.

Kolte AP, Kolte RA, Bawankar P. Proximal contact areas of maxillary anterior teeth and their influence on interdental papilla. Saudi Dent J 2018;30(4):324–9.

Ercoli C, Tarnow D, Poggio CE, Tsigarida A, Ferrari M, Caton JG, et al. The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium. J Prosthodont 2021;30(4):305–17.

Reddy KV, Nirupama C, Reddy PK, Koppolu P, Alotaibi DH. Effect of iatrogenic factors on periodontal health: An epidemiological study. Saudi Dent J 2020;32(2):80–5.

Additional Files



Most read articles by the same author(s)