ReviewCureus2025
The Effectiveness of Circumferential and Sectional Matrix Systems in Obtaining Optimum Proximal Contact in Class II Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and radiographic evaluation of fendermate and T-band matrix systems for restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effects of two sectional matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and mesiodistal dimension in class II composite restorations: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of circumferential matrix band (CMB) and sectional matrix band (SMB) systems in obtaining optimum proximal contact in class II composite restorations. This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024556368). Electronic databases were searched from January 1990 to April 2024 for studies assessing the effectiveness of circumferential and sectional matrix systems in obtaining optimum proximal contact in class II composite restorations. Quality assessment or risk of bias assessment of included studies was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through its domains using Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Six studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Quality assessment revealed a presence of moderate to low risk of bias. It was observed that sectional matrix band systems were superior and provided better results as compared to circumferential matrix band systems with regard to the parameters assessed. This study found the sectional matrix band system to be more effective than the circumferential system in achieving optimal proximal contact in class II posterior composite restorations. Sectional matrices with separation rings produced significantly tighter contacts. Although operator satisfaction was similar for both systems, the sectional matrix was deemed easier to use. Overall, the sectional matrix system is preferred for achieving stronger, more consistent proximal contacts in clinical settings.
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.