Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of fendermate and T-band matrix systems for restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06447324 (Assessment of Clinical, Radiographical Efficacy, Operator Ease and Satisfaction and Patient Comfort in Restoring Class II Cavities in Primary Molars With Fender Mate System Versus T-Band System), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Assessment of Clinical, Radiographical Efficacy, Operator Ease and Satisfaction and Patient Comfort in Restoring Class II Cavities in Primary Molars With Fender Mate System Versus T-Band System: An in Vivo Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestoring posterior primary teeth may result in issues such as improper contact points and proximal overhangs. New matrix systems were implemented to restore proper tooth contours and contacts. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to assess and compare the radiographic and clinical effectiveness, patient comfort, and operator satisfaction in Class II cavity restoration in primary molars utilizing the FenderMate matrix system versus the T-band.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial involving (20 children, 40 molars), ranging between 5 and 9 years, with bilateral class II cavities in primary molars (n = 40), indicated for class II restoration. Primary molars were randomized into two groups based on the matrix system used; Group I underwent the FenderMate system, whereas Group II underwent the T-band system. We assessed the clinical and radiographical efficacy of restorations, patient comfort, operator ease and satisfaction by the end of the procedure. Data were collected, and subjected to stastical analysis utilizing the chi-square test, The Mann-Whitney U test and, the Fisher exact test with statistical significance determined at p < 0.05.
resultsThe Optimum proximal contact was significantly achieved in 80% of T-band cases versus 30% with FenderMate (p = 0.006). No substantial differences were detetected between groups regarding radiographic proximal overhangs (p = 0.26) and ease of application/removal during primary molars' class II cavity restoration (p = 0.11 and p = 0.12, respectively). However, the FenderMate group experienced significant gingival trauma (p < 0.001) and restoration dislodgment (p < 0.001) but required significantly less time for application (p < 0.001). The T-band group exhibited significant patient comfort (P = 0.02, 0.0001), while FenderMate caused significant patient discomfort (P = 0.0002).
conclusionT- band matrices yield better proximal contacts and patient confort, while FenderMate provides greater time efficiency. These findings might assist clinicians in matrix selection for pediatric Class II restorations.
trial registrationThis current controlled trial was registered at clinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT06447324) on June 10, 2024.
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.