Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars.

<bold>Purpose: </bold>To evaluate the influence of the restorative material and matrix system on proximal contact tightness and morphological characteristics of class II restorations in primary molars.<bold>Methods: </bold>Occluso-mesial cavities in second primary artificial molars were randomly restored using different materials (Filtek Z500 or Filtek Bulk Fill composites or high-viscosity glass ionomer cement Ketac Universal) and different matrix system (Tofflemire, AutoMatrix, matrix band with ring, contoured sectional matrix) (n = 12). Proximal contact tightness was measured using a custom-made device in an Instron 3345, and proximal surface morphology and marginal adaptation were scored after digital scanning. Two-way ANOVA, Tukey and Fischer's exact tests were performed (P < 0.05).<bold>Results: </bold>Proximal contact tightness values were significantly influenced by the restorative material (P < 0.05), the matrix system (P < 0.001), and their interaction (P < 0.01). Both resin composites showed statistically differences in proximal shape according to the matrix used to restore and exhibited overhanging margins. Ketac Universal restorations showed similar morphology and gaps on the margins regardless of the matrix system.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Overall, both composite restorations achieved tighter proximal contact than those restored with the high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. None of the matrix systems tested provided a convex seamless proximal morphology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]