Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: An <i>in vitro</i> comparative analysis.

Abstract

<h4>Context</h4>The assessment of reestablishment of correct anatomic contour and proximal tightness with minimal gingival overhang of a class II restoration.<h4>Aim</h4>This <i>in vitro</i> study evaluated and compared the gingival overhang, contact, and contour anatomy achieved by four matrix systems for class II restorations.<h4>Materials and method</h4>Standardized class II mesio-occlusal conservative cavities were prepared on two hundred typodont teeth and assigned into four groups (<i>n</i> = 50): Tofflemire, U Band system, Palodent V3 matrix system, and Walser Matrix system. The cavities were restored with composite and qualitatively analyzed for proximal contact tightness. The morphology of the overhang and contour was assessed using a Medit scanner and Mesh Labs by superimposition.<h4>Statistical analysis used</h4>Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test of significance and Mann-Whiteny <i>U</i>-test for pair-wise comparison was used.<h4>Results</h4>The restorations showed statistically significant difference, with Walser matrix system and U Band demonstrating minimal overhang. No significant difference was observed for contact tightness among the groups (<i>P</i> = 0.109). Contours were assessed at the occlusal, middle, and cervical thirds. The Walser matrix system provided the best gingival contour (<i>P</i> = 0.000). The Palodent V3 matrix yielded the best contour at the middle (<i>P</i> = 0.002) and occlusal (<i>P</i> = 0.036) third with minimum deviation from optimal contour.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The sectional precontoured matrix system Palodent V3 system recreated the best proximal contour and contact anatomy, while minimal overhang was generated by the Walser matrix.