## 3 Discussion
It may also be possible to develop software that could only be used for this task, but seeing that many dentists create unique templates and tools for different interventions digitally, it may be more expedient to use the software already available. To improve the efficiency of the designing process in the future, certain steps should be automated with the application of specific software designed for this purpose. The second disadvantage of these customized matrices is that their fabrication poses an extra cost to the patient. However, this price is approximately the price of a metal cast in the case of a porcelain-fused metal crown, which can be incorporated into the average pricing in everyday clinical practice. Also, a scanner is mandatory for this procedure, which is an extra cost for the dental practice. The third disadvantage of the proposed workflow is the required time for fabrication and the subsequent delay in the treatment. First, there is the time (approx. 5-10 min) required to scan the affected area. After importing the STL file into the software (e.g., Blender), the designing process itself takes an experienced \"operator\" approx. 15-20 min, which is the same amount of time as creating a simple surgical implant template. After designing the template, the STL file is sent to the lab, and the physical matrix is usually prepared with several other restorations, which takes about approx. 6-8 h. Therefore, once the cavity is finalized and scanned, a temporary filling should be placed and treatment should be continued in another session once the matric has been fabricated. Last, but not least, the usage of a custom matrix requires a more experienced operator in order for the attempt to be successful since the application of the individual matrix can be difficult in cases with a large tooth substance loss. Due to its small size, thinness, and, therefore, potential distortion, it can be difficult to place the matrix in the correct position for the appropriate design. In addition, holding the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Traditional Prefabricated Matrices** & **Comparison** & **Customized Matrices** \\ \hline Prefabricated matrices do not follow the cavity margin and in many cases, it is necessary to improve their fit with wedges and rings. & Fitting & Customized matrices follow the cavity margin better. \\ \hline Traditional matrices are stable in smaller defects, where there is enough supporting tooth material. & Stability & Individualized matrices are stable even in large defects. \\ \hline Conventional matrices are hard to apply with rubber dams, especially in cases of deep approximant lesions. & Rubber dam isolation & Customized matrices can significantly support the rubber dam isolation. \\ \hline In many cases, traditional matrices need to be adjusted with matrix rings. & Matrix rings & 3D-printed matrices follow the remaining tooth structure without the use of matrix rings. \\ \hline Conventional matrices need to be fixed with wedges or matrix rings. & Fixation & Customized matrices need to be fixed with composite materials. \\ \hline Traditional matrices are relatively inexpensive. & Cost & The use of customized matrices incurs additional costs. \\ \hline Prefabricated matrices can be used in a single visit. & Time management & In order to create an individualized matrix, an additional visit is required. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison between the use of a prefabricated matrix and a customized matrix. matrix in the intended position requires composite fixation to the tooth, which can also be complicated by the elasticity of the rubber dam. In most cases, the help of an assistant is required for fitting. As a limitation, the authors would like to state that, as the proposed method is unique and rather new, there is no long-term follow-up on such cases. In the future, there is clearly a need for extended follow-up periods to evaluate the durability of these restorations and their impact on periodontal health.