Restoring proximal tooth surfaces remains one of the most challenging tasks in operative dentistry, requiring not only manual dexterity but also the use of precision instruments. The primary goal of any Class II restoration is to recreate a tight interproximal contact point to protect the interdental papilla, prevent food impaction, and maintain dental arch stability. In this context, the Swiss company Polydentia has secured a leading market position through the development of innovative sectional and anterior matrix systems, the efficacy of which is supported by numerous scientific publications and recent clinical studies.
Biomechanical Aspects of Contact Point Creation and Evolution of Matrix Systems
Historically, the development of matrix systems was driven by the transition from amalgam to composite materials. Amalgam, possessing high condensability, allowed clinicians to mechanically expand the matrix band to create contact. Conversely, composites are subject to polymerization shrinkage and lack active condensation properties, making the choice of matrix system critical for long-term restorative success. The core biomechanical principle of modern systems is the temporary separation of teeth to compensate for the thickness of the matrix band, achieved through separation rings and wedges.
Studies over the last few decades, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), consistently demonstrate the superiority of sectional matrix systems over traditional circumferential ones. Sectional systems, such as those developed by Polydentia, utilize pre-contoured metal bands and spring rings that generate the necessary force to compress the periodontal ligament.
A cross-sectional study conducted among 129 dental practitioners in 2024–2025 highlights a strong preference for sectional systems among specialists.
| Evaluation Parameter | Sectional Systems (Polydentia and similar) | Circumferential Systems (Tofflemire and similar) | P-value |
| Clinician Preference | 56.6% | 43.4% | < 0.05 |
| Optimal Contact Point (floss passes with resistance) | 93.0% | 82.9% | < 0.05 |
| Adequate Emergence Profile | 94.6% | 82.9% | < 0.05 |
| Open Contact (floss passes without resistance) | 6.2% | 15.5% | 0.044 |
These data indicate that sectional matrices provide significantly higher predictability in restoring the posterior teeth.
Analysis of Polydentia Sectional Systems Efficacy in the Posterior Region
Polydentia’s product line for posterior teeth includes the myQuickmat Forte, myQuickmat Prime, and QuickmatFIT systems. Each is designed to address specific clinical challenges, from standard Class II cavities to the restoration of severely damaged teeth.
Innovations in Ring Construction and Extremities
A key element of Polydentia systems is the myRing Forte, made of stainless steel and equipped with replaceable plastic extremities (tines). These tines ensure excellent adaptation of the matrix to the buccal and lingual walls of the tooth, minimizing the formation of excess material (flash) and reducing finishing time.
Of particular note is the myQuickmat Prime system, introduced in 2025 as a “wedgeless” solution. This system utilizes myTines Prime extremities with integrated guides that perform the functions of tooth separation and matrix stabilization. Clinical reports confirm that this design simplifies the restorative protocol, making it faster and more predictable. Quickmat Prime matrices feature an anatomical curvature from cervical to occlusal, allowing the formation of a contact point close to the equator of the tooth, which mimics natural anatomy.
Use of LumiContrast for Visual Control
One of Polydentia’s unique developments is the LumiContrast sectional matrices. These matrices have a dark blue coating that significantly reduces glare from operating lamps and microscopes, while creating high contrast between the matrix, tooth tissues, and composite material. Improving the visualization of cavity margins directly correlates with the quality of marginal adaptation and a reduction in the risk of secondary caries.
Restoration of Primary Teeth: The myJunior System
Restoring primary (deciduous) molars presents unique challenges due to their anatomical features: marked cervical constriction, broad and flat contact areas, and low clinical crown height. Standard matrix systems often slip or fail to provide tight cervical adaptation.
Comparative Morphology Study (Bogovska-Gigova & Hristov, 2025)
In a foundational study by Ralitsa Bogovska-Gigova and Krasimir Hristov (2025), a three-dimensional analysis of primary molar proximal surfaces was conducted following restoration with different systems. Researchers used an extraoral scanner (Smart Optics Vinyl) with a precision of ±0.01 mm to compare restored teeth to a master model.
| Matrix System | Mean Deviation from Master Model (mm) | Typical Restoration Profile |
| Polydentia myJuniorKit | 0.40 – 0.59 | Convex (Anatomical) |
| Dentsply Sirona Palodent V3 | 0.72 – 0.79 | Convex |
| Polydentia myQuickmat (Sectional) | 0.68 – 1.79 | Convex |
| Circumferential Systems (Tofflemire) | Significant Deviation | Flat |
The study demonstrated that the myJuniorKit system most accurately reproduces the proximal zone of primary molars, showing the least deviation from the natural tooth shape. Conversely, circumferential matrices more frequently lead to a flat profile, which is non-physiological for this tooth group and increases the risk of food impaction.
Clinical Efficacy and Patient Acceptance
Interesting data were obtained regarding working time and patient comfort in pediatric practice. Sectional systems like myJunior provide high-quality contacts (76.7% vs. 53.3% for circumferential systems), but their placement takes longer—averaging 125 seconds compared to 117 seconds for circumferential matrices. Additionally, approximately 70% of children reported discomfort during the placement of sectional rings, requiring clinicians to balance restoration quality with the child’s emotional state.
Revolution in the Anterior Region: The Unica System
Aesthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth requires systems capable of simultaneously forming proximal and cervical boundaries while ensuring a smooth emergence profile. Traditional Mylar strips often fail this task, creating flat surfaces and “steps” in the cervical area.
Design and the StyleItaliano Concept
The Unica matrix, developed in collaboration with the international group StyleItaliano, was the response to the need for a universal tool for Class III, IV, and V restorations, as well as diastema closure and direct composite veneers. The primary advantage of Unica is its contoured shape, which wraps the tooth labially and palatally, allowing the clinician to visualize the final restoration shape before polymerization.
Various system versions are available for different clinical scenarios:
- Unica Anterior: Designed for maxillary central and lateral incisors, and canines.
- Unica Minideep: Optimized for mandibular incisors and teeth with narrow cervical diameters (e.g., peg-shaped laterals).
- Unica Proximal: Ideal for closing diastemas when the cervical region does not require restoration.
Protocols for Diastema Closure and “Black Triangle” Management
Diastemas occur in approximately 11% of the adult population and are a frequent aesthetic complaint. Using Unica matrices allows for an additive closure procedure without tooth preparation. Scientific data indicate that the five-year survival rate for such restorations ranges from 84.6% to 89.4%.
In cases of periodontal issues involving the loss of interdental papillae and the formation of “black triangles,” the use of Unica Proximal Deep allows the clinician to shape the subgingival contour to stimulate soft tissue recovery. With a thickness of only 0.03 mm, the matrix easily passes through tight contacts, and its malleability allows for the individualization of the tooth shape directly in the mouth.
Comparative Analysis with Competing Systems
In the global market, Polydentia competes with systems such as Palodent V3 (Dentsply Sirona) and Garrison Composi-Tight. Comparisons in independent research reveal specific trends.
| Characteristic | Polydentia (myQuickmat Forte) | Garrison (3D Fusion) | Palodent V3 |
| Ring Material | Stainless Steel / NiTi | Stainless Steel / NiTi | Nitinol (NiTi) |
| Ring Stability | High (due to extremities) | High (soft-face tines) | Exceptional |
| Risk of Slipping | Low | Medium (large ring size) | Low |
| Visualization | High (LumiContrast) | Medium | Medium |
| Wedge Design | Anatomical (myWedge) | Soft-Face Technology | Adaptive Wedges |
According to comparative tests, Palodent V3 rings are often rated as the most stable , but Polydentia myRing Forte demonstrates comparable separation force and superior durability through repeated autoclaving cycles compared to some Garrison models, where silicone tines may degrade over time.
Nathaniel Lawson’s study (2019) showed that newer circumferential systems, like Palodent 360, create contacts 23% wider than traditional Tofflemire bands. However, for creating true anatomical convexity, Polydentia’s sectional systems remain the preferred choice.
Clinical Survival and Risk Factors
The long-term success of restorations using Polydentia systems depends not only on the tools but also on adherence to adhesive and polymerization protocols.
Primary Causes of Failure
A scientific review of factors affecting the longevity of composite restorations identifies the following primary complications :
- Restoration Fractures: More common in the posterior region with significant loss of tooth structure.
- Secondary Caries: The risk increases with poor marginal adaptation, especially subgingivally.
- Marginal Staining and Gloss Loss: Aesthetic issues requiring periodic repolishing.
Using Polydentia matrices reduces these risks by creating a tight contact and precise adaptation in the cervical area, minimizing the volume of excess composite the clinician must remove with burs.
Role of Restorative Materials
The effectiveness of a matrix system is bolstered by the choice of composite. The use of bulk-fill materials (e.g., X-tra fil or Filtek One Bulk Fill) in combination with sectional matrices reduces the risk of voids and pores within the restoration. Studies show that bulk-fill composites provide better marginal adaptation in deep proximal boxes compared to traditional layering techniques.
Ergonomics and Workflow Organization
Modern dental practice strives for the simplification and standardization of procedures. Polydentia actively implements the “kit” concept, which includes all necessary components for specific tasks.
Advantages of Comprehensive Kits
The Unica Master Kit contains four types of matrices and an assortment of myWedges. This provides the clinician with a ready-made solution for any anterior defect, reducing setup time. In the posterior region, the use of the myClip 2.0 system, which combines the functions of a ring and forceps (placed using only fingers), significantly improves ergonomics and clinical speed.
Standardizing protocols with Polydentia products allows for “feasible, teachable, and repeatable” results, which is the core motto of StyleItaliano. This is particularly important in high-volume clinics where minimizing the impact of the human factor on contact point quality is essential.
Future Outlook and Conclusions
Analysis of the scientific literature and clinical data concludes that Polydentia matrix systems are high-tech tools that meet the requirements of modern adhesive dentistry. The transition from flat matrices to anatomically contoured systems has been a decisive factor in improving the quality of life for patients following dental treatment.
Key Findings:
- Polydentia sectional systems are statistically superior to circumferential matrices in creating tight, anatomically correct contacts in the posterior region.
- The myJunior system is the most accurate tool for primary molar restoration, ensuring minimal deviation from natural morphology.
- The Unica matrix has radically simplified anterior aesthetic rehabilitation, allowing for the one-step restoration of cervical and proximal margins with high predictability.
- Innovative materials, such as NiTi rings and LumiContrast matrices, increase instrument longevity and improve visual control during procedures.
While future developments may lead to even thinner and stronger bands or the integration of 3D-printed individual matrices, Polydentia systems currently represent a “gold standard” for clinicians seeking biological and aesthetic harmony in their restorations.
Polydentia Applied – clinical cases (dataset)
Bibliography reference:
- Bogovska-Gigova, R. & Hristov, K. (2025). Three-dimensional analysis of the anatomical features of the proximal surfaces of primary molars after restoration with different matrix systems. Romanian Journal of Stomatology, 71(3), 273-278.
- Kamble, S., Ramugade, M., Sayed, A., et al. (2024). The Effectiveness of Circumferential and Sectional Matrix Systems in Obtaining Optimum Proximal Contact in Class II Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review. Cureus / PMC.
- Lawson, N. C. (2019). The Palodent 360 matrix system: Comparing strength and contact dimensions across competing circumferential matrix systems. Dentsply Sirona Research Study.
- Urkande, N. K., Mankar, N., Nikhade, P. P., et al. (2023). Anterior Matrix Systems for Composite Restorations: A Review. Cureus, 15(4).
- StyleItaliano & Polydentia. Clinical protocols and case reports for the Unica Anterior, Unica Proximal, and myQuickmat Prime systems. StyleItaliano Clinical Cases.
- Deshpande, N. (2026). Developing tight proximal contacts in anterior teeth using Unica Anterior matrix – A case report. Dental Tribune India.
- Romanian Dental Practitioners Survey (2024–2025). Perceptions of Sectional and Circumferential Matrix Systems in Posterior Proximal Restorations: A Survey on Interproximal Contact Quality and Emergence Profile. Applied Sciences / MDPI, 15(18).
- Bogovska-Gigova, R. & Hristov, K. (2025). Effect of Matrix Systems and Filling Materials on Proximal Contacts in Primary Molar Restorations: An In Vitro Study. Asian Journal of Dental Sciences, 8(1), 22-30.
- Schmedding, T. (2021). Anterior matrix systems – essential to provide proper anatomical form and function to restorations. International Dentistry – African Edition, 11(2).
- Polydentia SA. Technical documentation and clinical applications for myRing Forte, myClip 2.0, and LumiContrast matrices.
- Tapia Guadix, J. (2025). Class II restoration on 1st molars with myQuickmat Prime: Clinical case and protocol. Polydentia Clinical Reports.
- Sherwood, I. A., et al. (2017). Modified putty index matrix technique with mylar strip and a new classification for selecting the type of matrix in anterior proximal/incisal composite restorations. Clinical Case Reports, 5(7).
Disclaimer: This analysis provides general information and should not be considered a substitute for professional dental advice. Consult with a qualified dentist for diagnosis and treatment of any dental condition.