Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoring an ideal proximal contact in direct Class II composite resin restorations is challenging due to polymerization shrinkage, absence of condensability of composite materials, thickness of matrix bands, and the use of various separation techniques, retainers, and bands. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the proximal contact tightness that is achieved by various matrix systems used to restore a direct Class II cavity with composite resin restoration. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines. The online search for the articles was done in electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The articles comparing different matrix systems for restoration were selected. Out of 146 articles, a total of 6 articles met the selection criteria and were included. The QUIN risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was used for assessing the study quality. The data extracted from full text articles selected for inclusion, using a standardized software (Office Excel 2013 Software, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in tighter proximal contact compared to other matrix systems.