Kamble Shamal, Ramugade Manoj, Sayed Abrar, Sapkale Kishore, Gulhane Arti, Magar Aditi
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, Mumbai, IND.
Cureus. 2025 May 28;17(5):e84967. doi: 10.7759/cureus.84967. eCollection 2025 May.
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.
本综述旨在评估环形基质带(CMB)和分段基质带(SMB)系统在获得II类复合树脂修复体最佳邻面接触方面的有效性。本综述按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)2020指南进行,并在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)中注册(注册号:CRD42024556368)。检索了1990年1月至2024年4月的电子数据库,以查找评估环形和分段基质系统在获得II类复合树脂修复体最佳邻面接触方面有效性的研究。使用Cochrane偏倚风险(RoB)2工具,通过Review Manager(RevMan)软件版本5.3(英国伦敦Cochrane协作网),对纳入研究的质量评估或偏倚风险评估进行随机对照试验(RCT)的各领域分析。六项研究符合纳入标准,并纳入定性综合分析。质量评估显示存在中度至低度偏倚风险。观察到,在评估的参数方面,分段基质带系统比环形基质带系统更优越,效果更好。本研究发现,在II类后牙复合树脂修复体中,分段基质带系统在实现最佳邻面接触方面比环形系统更有效。带有分离环的分段基质产生的接触明显更紧密。尽管两种系统的操作者满意度相似,但分段基质被认为更易于使用。总体而言,在临床环境中,分段基质系统更适合实现更强、更一致的邻面接触。