ArticleCureus2022
Operators' Ease and Satisfaction in Restoring Class II Cavities With Sectional Matrix Versus Circumferential Matrix System at Qassim University Dental Clinics.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Investigation of Undergraduate Dental Student Stress in the Management of Deep and Moderate Carious Lesions.International endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Review
- Digitized thermo-responsive shape memory matrix band for tooth restorations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the operator's ease, satisfaction, and comfort of using a circumferential matrix system and sectional matrix system on the proximal contact points and contours when restoring class II cavities in posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed at the clinics in the Department of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University. A total of 105 dental students randomly participated in this study to restore a class II cavity with direct composite resin restoration. Operators' comfort and satisfaction were evaluated according to their assessment of the contact points they reproduced and the emergence profiles of restorations, using a circumferential matrix system and sectional matrix system.
resultsOut of 105 operators, 57 were satisfied with using circumferential matrix bands for most of their cases while 78 of the operators were satisfied with sectional matrix bands. There were no significant differences between operator satisfaction and the use of circumferential matrix band system (P > 0.05) and sectional matrix band system (P = 0.134) but there was a significant difference between difficulty levels in the use of both matrix band systems (P < 0.05; P = 0.000).
conclusionCircumferential and sectional matrix band systems showed no significant differences with operators' satisfaction during restoring class II cavities in posterior teeth but using a sectional matrix band system was considered easier than using a circumferential matrix band system.
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.