Background: Direct Posterior Composite restorations are one of the most commonly practiced restoration in clinical practice. It is considered to be the best alternative among all metal free restorations owing to low cost, satisfactory clinical success rate, relatively simple procedure not but least preserve remaining tooth structure in accordance to minimal invasive dentistry. Obtaining a precise contour and contact for class- II composite restoration or reconstruction is challenging as the most frequently faced complications are open contact leading to food impaction and post-operative sensitivity. Inefficient contour result in faulty occlusion and excessive wear of the restoration. Improper contact jeopardizes the health of the entire periodontium such as increased gingival inflammation, attachment loss apart from overhanging restorations. So the primary objective of a class II resin composite restoration is to create a functional and predictable ideal physiological proximal contact Numerous techniques and special armamentarium are needed to overcome the problems encountered in such clinical situations.
Conclusion: This technical report shows various matrices and techniques that are used to overcome the open contact problem. These are evidence based solutions that can be used in clinical practice.
Varian CM, Dimitriu BA, Bodnar DC, Varian V, Simina CD, Popa MB. Contemporary Approach For Reestablishment of Proximal Contacts In Direct Class II Resin Composite Restorations TMJ 2008;58(3-4):236-43.
Wirsching E, Loomans AC, Klaiber B, Dorfer CE Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo J Dentistry 2011;(39):386-90.
Kampouropoulos D, Paximada C, Loukidis M, Kakaboura A. The Influence of Matrix Type on the Proximal Contact in Class II Resin Composite Restorations. Oper Dent 2010; 35(4):454-62.
Khan FR, Umer F, Rahman M Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars Restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separating Ring -A Randomized Clinical Trial IJOPRD 2013;3(1):7-13
Nitzan B The Centripetal Build Up For Composite Resin Posterior Restorations Cosmetic Dentistry 6(3):17-23.
Cecillia MS. In Vivo and In Vitro Evaluation of Class II Composite Resin Restoration with Different Matrix Systems. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2006;8(2):127- 132
Raghu R, Srinivasan R Optimizing tooth form with direct posterior composite restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14:330-6.
Wafa A. El-Badrawy, Brian W. Leung, Omar ElMowafy, Jose H. Rubo, Marcia H.. Evaluation of Proximal Contacts of Posterior Composite Restorations with 4 Placement Techniques. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 2003; 69(3): 162-67.
Dinesh S, Priyadarshini S, Mohan S Comparing metal and transparent matrices in Preventing gingival overhang with different Resin material in class II restorations - An SEM Study Pravara Med Rev 2010;2(2):4.
Richard D. Trushkowsky Composite Resin Fundamentals and Direct Technique restorations. Esthetic Dentistry. A Clinical Approach to Techniques and Materials. Aschheim KW, Dale. BG Second edition Mosby Inc, St. Loius, Missouri. page no.78-81