ArticleBritish dental journal2021
Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth.
Article in British dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of Operative Techniques on Clinical and Laboratory Outcomes in Class II Resin-Based Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical performance of class II MOD fiber reinforced resin composite restorations: an 18-month randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- EFCD Expert Non-Consensus on Material and Technique Use for Direct Class II Composites With Guidance on Restoring Complex Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Restorations: Amalgam Dominates.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Amalgam versus composite restorations: a cost-consequence analysis.British dental journal · 2026Article
- Experts' Willingness to Restore With Direct Composite: Complexity, Cuspal Coverage, and Techniques.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of matrix system on the quality of proximal contact in posterior bulk-fill resin composite restorations- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Review
- The long-term oral health consequences of an amalgam phase-out.British dental journal · 2025Review
- 22 months follow-up of deep marginal acquisition with thermacut bur in management of deep subgingival interproximal carious lesions: a case report.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- New Technique for Wedge Selection in Direct Class II Restorations: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Current Strategies to Control Recurrent and Residual Caries with Resin Composite Restorations: Operator- and Material-Related Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Matrix transfer techniques for direct paste composite resins.British dental journal · 2022Article
- Reflections from undergraduate teaching experiences: some problems and solutions of restoring teeth with dental resin composite instead of dental amalgam.British dental journal · 2022Article
- 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.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sectional matrix techniques offer more predictable solutions to achieving contact areas when placing direct interproximal posterior composites than circumferential matrix techniques, resulting in reduced reported complaints of food packing from patients. Despite this, a large majority of UK dentists and therapists don't currently use them. Sectional matrix systems are technique-sensitive to use, which can be a barrier to implementation for inexperienced users. The matrices can easily distort during their placement and stabilisation and when placing the restorative material. This can result in unwanted, clinically relevant problems in the resulting restorations, some of which may not be discernible once they have occurred. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of sectional matrices and the processes and techniques involved in their use, before discussing the potential for distortion at each step. It offers solutions to some of the commonly seen problems which will provide more predictable outcomes for those already using these techniques and encourage non-users to add them to their armamentarium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.