Clinical Study on Effect of Proximal Space and Matrix Systems on Restorative Quality of Class Ⅱ Cavities

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2026.10.006

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the clinical performance of the Garrison Composi-Tight and Palodent V3 matrix systems in direct composite resin restorations for posterior Class Ⅱ cavities and to quantify the impact of the distance between key points on the proximal cavity surface and the adjacent tooth on the restoration quality. Methods: The study included 70 cases of posterior Class Ⅱ carious cavities treated in the Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics at Tianjin Medical University School of Stomatology. The matrix system was selected based on predefined cavity characteristics (Garrison group: n=38; Palodent group: n=32). The distances from five key points on the proximal cavity surface to the adjacent tooth were measured: the center of the gingival wall (A), the buccal/lingual gingival embrasures (B1/B2), and the buccal/lingual cavosurface margins at the occlusal aspect (C1/C2). Radiographs were taken 30 minutes post-restoration. The restoration quality was evaluated using the FDI criteria and modified USPHS criteria, followed by statistical analysis. Results: The Garrison group demonstrated a significantly superior radiographic evaluation score (median=1.000) compared to the Palodent group (median=2.000) (z=-3.354, P=0.001). Conversely, the Palodent group showed a better anatomical form score (median=1.000) than the Garrison group (median=2.000) (z=-2.694, P=0.007). A significant negative correlation was observed between resin flash and the distance at all five measurement points (P<0.05), while a significant positive correlation was found between marginal adaptation and the distance at all five points (P<0.05), with identified cut-off values for both. Restoration microleakage showed a negative correlation with the distance at the gingival wall points (A, B1, B2) (P<0.05). Conclusion: The distance between the proximal cavity surface and the adjacent tooth within the range of 0.69-0.87 mm facilitates the achievement of an ideal restoration outcome.

Key words: composite resins, dental restoration, sectional matrix system, tooth preparation, proximal contact, class Ⅱ cavity restoration, radiography, clinical research

ZHANG Zirui, CHEN Min, WANG Li, QIAO Feng, LUO Yanping, YIN Bin, WANG Yuanyuan, WU Ligeng. Clinical Study on Effect of Proximal Space and Matrix Systems on Restorative Quality of Class Ⅱ Cavities[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2026, 42(10): 860-866.

References

[1] Donaldson K. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics,fourth edition[M]. 4th edition.United Kingdom:BR DENT, 2012:213-427.
[2] 罗云,任杰.临床食物嵌塞病症的常见病因分析及序列治疗[J].国际口腔医学杂志,2016,43(1):1-4.
[3] Panda DN, Kaushik M, Mehra N, et al. Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class Ⅱ restorations using four different dental matrix systems: An in vitro comparative analysis[J]. J Conserv Dent Endod, 2025, 28(5):449-455.
[4] Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, et al. Proximal marginal overhang of composite restorations in relation to placement technique of separation rings[J]. Oper Dent, 2012, 37(1):21-27.
[5] 梁睿贞,胡明,吴锦涛,等.分段式后牙邻面成形系统的临床应用效果评价[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2012,22(6):354-356.
[6] Tolba ZO, Oraby E, Abd EL, et al. Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class Ⅱ direct composite restoration in-vitro[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1):535.
[7] Kamble S, Ramugade M, Sayed A, et al. The effectiveness of circumferential and sectional matrix systems in obtaining optimum proximal contact in class Ⅱ composite restorations: a systematic review[J]. Cureus, 2025, 17(5):e84967.
[8] Asif M, Khattak I, Qureshi A, et al. Comparison between two types of matrix systems for contact tightness in class-Ⅱ composite restorations[J]. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 2023, 35(2):253-258.
[9] Shamy H. Influence of metal versus transparent matrices on proximal contact tightness of class Ⅱ bulk-fill composite restorations[J]. Egypt Dent J, 2018, 64(3):2819-2825.
[10] Dikmen B. Icdas Ⅱ criteria[J]. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent, 2015, 49(3):63-72.
[11] Mohamed MH, Abouauf EA, Mosallam RS. Clinical performance of class Ⅱ MOD fiber reinforced resin composite restorations: an 18-month randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2025, 25(1):159.
[12] Marquillier T, Doméjean S, LE Clerc J, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review[J]. J Dent, 2018, 68:1-9.
[13] 陈智.牙修复体的临床评价标准[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2019,54(9):612-617.
[14] Volety S, Rao AS, Kishan KV, et al. Comparison of proximal contact tightness and contour of bioclear biofit HD versus Composi-tight 3DXR matrix systems in Class-Ⅱ composite restoration: A randomized clinical study[J]. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 2025, 15(4):696-702.
[15] 陈智,卢展民,Falk Schwendicke,等.龋损管理:龋坏组织去除的专家共识[J].中华口腔医学研究杂志,2016,51(12):712-716.
[16] Wafaie RA, Ahmed B, Mahmoud SH. Fracture resistance of molars with class Ⅱ MOD cavities restored with bulk-fill, no-cap flowable bulk-fill, and conventional resin composite restorative systems after 6-months water storage[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2025, 25(1):741.
[17] Cavalheiro CP, Scherer H, Imparato JCP, et al. Use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in class Ⅱ restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(10):5629-5639.
[18] Kaisarly D, Langenegger R, Litzenburger F, et al. Effects of application method on shrinkage vectors and volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class-Ⅱ restorations[J]. Dent Mater, 2022, 38(1):79-93.
[19] Yang J, Silikas N, Watts DC. Polymerization and shrinkage kinetics and fracture toughness of bulk-fill resin-composites[J]. Dent Mater, 2022, 38(12):1934-1941.
[20] Peumans M, Venuti P, Politano G, et al. Effective protocol for daily high-quality direct posterior composite restorations. The interdental anatomy of the class-2 composite restoration[J]. J Adhes Dent, 2021, 23(1):21-34.
[21] Jauregui-Ulloa JT, Luke BN, Kunapareddy A, et al. Effect of using curing light manufacturer-recommended exposure times on the microhardness of resin composites[J]. J Dent, 2025, 160:105870.
[22] Tennert C, Maliakal C, Suarèz ML, et al. Longevity of posterior direct versus indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Dent Mater, 2024, 40(11):95-101.
[23] Hopkins CE, Restrepo-kennedy N, Elgreatly A, et al. Fracture resistance of defective amalgam restorations repaired with a resin-based composite material[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2023, 154(2):141-150.
[24] Bailey O, Shand B, Ellis I. Class Ⅱ composite restoration technique teaching: A randomised controlled crossover laboratory-based trial involving a novel ringless sectional matrix technique[J]. Eur J Dent Educ, 2023, 27(4):963-973.
[25] Kumari S, Raghu R, Shetty A, et al. Morphological assessment of the surface profile, mesiodistal diameter, and contact tightness of Class Ⅱ composite restorations using three matrix systems: An in vitro study[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2023, 26(1):67-72.
[26] Falacho RI, Melo EA, Marques JA, et al. Clinical in-situ evaluation of the effect of rubber dam isolation on bond strength to enamel[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2023, 35(1):48-55.