RESUMO
AIM: To compare two matrix systems (circumferential and sectional) based on clinical efficiency and patient acceptability for placement of visible light cure composite resin restorative material in a Class II cavity in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty children with bilateral Class II cavities of age-group 5-9 years were selected. A split-mouth comparative experimental study was conducted at Manav Rachna Dental College, India. Cavities were restored using either circumferential or sectional matrix band system. The child upon completion of the treatment filled the subject preference questionnaire. Time assessment was done for matrix system placement. Contact points were evaluated using dental floss as open or closed. RESULTS: Time required to place sectional matrices was more (125.30 ± 29.40) than required for circumferential matrices (117.20 ± 38.94). The sectional matrices group has more ideal contacts (23) (76.7%) than the circumferential matrices group (16) (53.3%). About 70% of the children pointed discomfort toward the sectional matrices. Children in this study accepted circumferential matrices to be more comfortable than the sectional matrices group. CONCLUSION: The circumferential matrices group was more time efficient compared to the sectional matrices group. However, sectional matrices resulted in a greater number of restorations with ideal contacts. Based on the preference circumferential matrix band system has been found superior to sectional matrix band system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study was conducted to find a better matrix system in case of pediatric patients. Circumferential matrices were found to be more superior with respect to preference and time efficiency and sectional matrices were preferred for ideal contacts. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Efficiency and Patient Acceptability toward the Use of Circumferential Matrix and Sectional Matrix for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(6):748-751.