Comparison of microleakage for three one-bottle and three multiple-step dentin bonding agents.

PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the ability of several recently introduced 1-bottle adhesives to their preceding multiple-step dentin bonding agents in reducing microleakage around Class V composite restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Facial and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in 48 molar teeth, which were randomly divided into 6 equal groups. Three groups used the fourth-generation multiple-step systems, and 3 used the fifth-generation single-bottle adhesives. All cavities were restored by composite and subjected to thermocycling and intermittent occlusal loading. After immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsin, the teeth were cut faciolingually in 5 consecutive sections and evaluated for dye penetration using a binocular stereomicroscope. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of microleakage comparing the adhesive's generation and manufacturer and the location of the cavity margins. A significant interaction was found between margin location and manufacturer, which implied that the sealing capacity at the enamel and cementum margins was material-specific. CONCLUSION: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Single Bond adhesives provided the best seal for enamel margins, and One-Step and Optibond FL adhesives were best for cementum margins.     

Microleakage in class V gingiva-shaded composite resin restorations

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microleakage in Class V cavities restored with a new gingiva-shaded microhybrid composite resin and with a conventional microhybrid composite resin using three different dentin bonding systems (DBS). Class V cavities were prepared in sixty freshly extracted human teeth with the incisal margin in enamel and the apical margin in dentin/cementum. Restored specimens, after thermocycling, were placed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Longitudinal sections were obtained and studied with a stereomicroscope for assessment of the microleakage according to degree of dye penetration (scale 0-3). Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis test and with Mann-Whitney U-test.IN THIS STUDY THERE WAS NO LEAKAGE IN ENAMEL: all the cavities showed no dye penetration at the incisal margins (located in enamel). None of the DBS used eliminated microleakage in apical margins (located in dentin or cementum): three-step total-etch and single-step self-etch were more effective in reducing microleakage in dentin margins when compared with two-step total-etch. This in vitro study concluded that microleakage in Class V cavities restored with the composite resins tested is similar.     

An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the marginal leakage of cervical restorations made using alternative restorative treatment (ART) and conventional glass ionomer restorations. METHODS: Sixteen permanent maxillary and mandibular first and second molars extracted for periodontal reasons with Class V carious dentin on the buccal surfaces were prepared using ART while a second set of 29 noncarious molars had Class V preparations made with a high-speed handpiece. The occlusal margin was located in the enamel, and the gingival margin was located in the dentin/cementum. All teeth were restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC). The teeth were thermally stressed for 300 cycles and stained with methylene blue. Samples were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage. RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance on ranks revealed no significant difference in leakage at both the dentin and enamel margins between the conventional and ART groups. The microleakage at the dentin margin, however, was significantly greater (P < .001) than at the enamel margins in the conventional group. CONCLUSION: Alternative restorative treatment with GIC provides enamel and dentin margins that show comparable marginal leakage to conventionally restored permanent teeth. For the conventional restorations, leakage at the dentin margins occurs to a significantly higher extent than at the enamel margins.     

Sealing ability of new generation adhesive systems in primary teeth: an in vitro study

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the sealing ability of different types of restorative-adhesive combinations on deciduous molars in vitro. METHODS: Facial and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in 120 primary teeth. They were randomly divided into 8 groups of N= 15, in which different adhesives were used (XE=Xeno III; LP=Adper Prompt L Pop; IB=I Bond; SB=Scotch Bond 1; EP=Etch & Prime 3.0; AS=AdheSE; OB=Optibond Solo plus self-etch primer; CS=Clearfil SE Bond). All cavities were restored with composite Z 250. After thermocycling and immersion in 2% methylene blue, the dye penetration was evaluated under a microscope. RESULTS: In enamel and in cementum: the best seals were obtained with XE and LP, followed by CS, AS, IB, OB, SB, and EP (P=.001). No significant differences were recorded in the microleakage degree between the cementum and the enamel margins (P=.40). CONCLUSIONS: In this in vitro model, Xeno III and Adper Prompt L Pop provided the best seals both at the enamel and the cementum margins of Class V cavities in primary molars.     

Microleakage of compomer class V restorations: effect of load cycling, thermal cycling, and cavity shape differences

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Microleakage is an important problem with direct filling restorations and an understanding of the factors that contribute to it is of critical importance. PURPOSE. This study investigated the effect of thermal and occlusal load cycling, and limited cavity preparation on microleakage of compomer Class V restorations in vitro. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Class V cavities were randomly prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 32 recently extracted molars and premolars and restored with Dyract compomer restorative system as per the manufacturer's directions. Teeth were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups with 8 teeth in each group: (I) thermocycling only; (II) load cycling only; (III) both thermocycling and load cycling; and (IV) no treatment. All teeth were then immersed in 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours. Dye penetration was measured linearly using color photographic prints. ANOVA, comparisons between means, and correlation were used to analyze the results. RESULTS. Thermocycling and cavity preparation had a significant effect on microleakage, but load cycling did not. Occlusal margins leaked more than the gingival margins. CONCLUSION. Class V restorations demonstrated increased microleakage under the conditions of thermal cycling and nonretentive cavity design. More microleakage occurred at occlusal margins than at gingival margins. The effect of load cycling is complicated by considerations of the types of stresses applied and the restorative material response to such stresses.     

Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Resin-modified glass ionomers and polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) have been introduced to provide esthetic restorations. However, there is concern about the marginal sealing ability of these materials, especially at the dentin (cementum) aspects of restorations. PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of Class V restorations made with resin-modified glass ionomers or a compomer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty noncarious human molar teeth were used. Standardized kidney-shaped Class V cavity preparations were placed in the buccal and lingual surfaces at the cementoenamel junction. Teeth were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups of 10 teeth each and restored as follows: group 1, Fuji II LC; group 2, Vitremer; and group 3, Dyract. In all cases, the manufacturers' instructions were strictly followed. All materials were placed in a single increment. Unfinished restorations were immediately coated with the respective manufacturers' sealer or varnish and this was either light cured for 20 seconds or allowed to air-dry. After 24 hours, teeth were finished to contour and to the cavosurface margins, coated with nail varnish except for 1 mm around the restoration margin, thermocycled (1000x, 5-55 degrees C) and placed in a solution of 2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at room temperature. The staining along the tooth restoration interface was recorded. RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences among all restorative materials for the overall, occlusal, and gingival scores (P =.03, P =.01, P =.01, respectively). Occlusal and gingival scores for each matched pair of restorative materials using the Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant differences between Fuji II LC glass ionomer cement and Dyract composite, both for the occlusal (P =.005) and gingival (P =.005) margins and also as an overall evaluation (P =.01), with Fuji II LC showing the least dye penetration. Vitremer revealed dye penetration scores not significantly different from Fuji II LC glass ionomer cement or Dyract composite. CONCLUSION: Resin-modified glass ionomers showed less or similar microleakage than the polyacid-modified composite resin tested.     

Effect of eccentric load cycling on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable composite resin restorations.

Class V composite restorations are subject to the stresses that induce non-carious cervical lesions. This study evaluated the effect of eccentric oblique load on microleakage of restorations. Class V cavities were randomly prepared on the buccal surfaces of 40 recently extracted premolars and restored with composite resin according to manufacturers' directions. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with 10 teeth per group: (1) flowable resin (Revolution) without load cycling; (2) packable resin (Prodigy Condensable) without load cycling; (3) flowable resin with load cycling (200,000 cycles) and (4) packable resin with load cycling (200,000 cycles). All teeth were then immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles). Dye penetration was measured (scores 0-3). The results indicated that adding load cycling significantly increased microleakage (p < 0.05). No significant differences in microleakage were observed for flowable resin vs packable resin. Gingival margins had significantly more microleakage (p < 0.05) than occlusal margins.     

Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth

PURPOSE: This study compared the effectiveness of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems in bonding to the beveled and nonbeveled margins of primary and permanent teeth. METHODS: This in vitro, factorial-designed study allowed evaluation of 3 factors: (1) tooth type; (2) presence of a bevel; and (3) adhesive type. Two preparations, each including a beveled and nonbeveled margin, were completed on buccal surfaces of 60 extracted molars (30 primary and 30 permanent). Preparations were randomly assigned to self-etch or a total-etch adhesive system and restored with resin composite. After thermocycling, teeth were stained with silver nitrate, sectioned, and measured for microleakage. Statistical analysis used a repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Beveled margins had less microleakage than nonbeveled margins for primary and permanent teeth (P < .001). Total-etch had less microleakage than self-etch adhesives on primary (53% less, P < .001) and on permanent teeth (22% less, P = .01). Self-etch had considerably more microleakage when enamel margins were not beveled. Comparably less microleakage, however, was found for total-etch and self-etch in restorations with beveled margins. CONCLUSIONS: Total-etch adhesive and beveled margins resulted in the least microleakage. Margin beveling has a greater effect in minimizing microleakage than the type of adhesive used.     

Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because conventional glass ionomer cements are moisture sensitive, a surface coating is recommended during the initial setting stage. It is unknown whether resin-modified glass ionomer cements also need surface protection. PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of various surface protections on microleakage with Class V resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty extracted molars with buccal and lingual Class V cavity preparations were restored with a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC). The occlusal margin of each restoration was on enamel and the cervical margin on dentin. After immediate finishing and polishing, the teeth were divided into 4 groups according to the following surface protection treatments: group I, unprotected; group II, Fuji varnish; group III, resin adhesive; and group IV, acid etching and resin adhesive. After these procedures, all teeth were stored in isotonic saline for 24 hours, thermocycled 1500 times at 5 degrees C to 60 degrees C, and soaked in dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was recorded and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (P<.05) RESULTS: None of the 4 groups demonstrated complete margin sealing at either the occlusal or cervical margins. Groups II and III displayed the least microleakage at cervical margins; a significant difference existed between groups I and III (P=.034). Compared with the other 3 groups, group IV showed significantly greater microleakage at the cervical margins. CONCLUSION: Although resin-modified glass ionomers can be finished immediately, they remain moisture sensitive. Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that resin adhesive should be used as a surface protection to reduce margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations.     

Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin (enamel or dentin) on the microleakage of proximal restorations on posterior teeth. Methods and MATERIALS: Sixty freshly extracted human third molars were prepared with standardized Class II box-shaped cavities with proportional size and shape, with distal gingival margins located on the enamel and mesial gingival margins on dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups according to resin shade (n=10): G1-Incisal; G2-A1; G3-A2; G4-A3; G5-A3.5; G6-A4. The cavities were restored with a total-etch 1-bottle adhesive system and microhybrid resin composites inserted in 4 increments, light cured for 20 seconds through the occlusal surface, then an additional 60 seconds for each surface. After 1 week of immersion in distilled water, the specimens were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5 degrees -55 degrees C, 30 seconds dwell time), sealed with nail polish and immersed in 0.5% basic fuschin solution for 24 hours. The restorations were sectioned longitudinally, and microleakage was evaluated using a 0-3 score scale. RESULTS: Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests at p<0.05. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed regarding the shade of resin composite (p=0.8570). When margins (enamel or dentin) were considered separately, statistically significant differences were observed between groups (p<0.0001), with enamel margins exhibiting lower degrees of microleakage. CONCLUSION: The variation of resin composite shades utilized in this study did not influence the microleakage of Class II restorations. However, the location of the gingival margin influenced the microleakage.     

The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth-coloured restoratives. Part 2: composite and polyacid-modified composite resins

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of polishing systems on the microleakage of composite and polyacid-modified composite resins. Class V cavities were prepared at the cemento-enamel junction of 80 freshly extracted posterior teeth. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into two groups and restored with conventional or polyacid-modified composite resins. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 1 week after removal of excess restorative with diamond finishing burs. The restored teeth were then divided into four groups of ten and finished/polished using the following systems: Two Striper micron finishing system (MFS), Sof-Lex XT (Sof-Lex), Enhance composite finishing and polishing system (Enhance), and Shofu composite finishing kit (Shofu). The finished restorations were subjected to dye penetration testing. Results showed that the microleakage resistance at both enamel and dentin margins of composite and polyacid-modified composite resins are not significantly affected by the different polishing systems.     

Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS: Finishing of composites may adversely influence the sealing ability of direct adhesive restorations. PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine whether finishing time and techniques under wet or dry conditions affect the microleakage of 2 types of class V composite restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty class V preparations were made in the buccal surfaces of noncarious molars with the occlusal margins ending in enamel and the gingival margins in dentin. Dental adhesive (Single Bond) was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Half of the preparations were restored with a microfilled composite (Silux Plus) and the other half with a hybrid composite (Filtek Z250). Within each major composite group (n = 40), 4 subgroups (n = 10) were established based on finishing technique (diamond finishing burs or aluminum oxide discs) and finishing time (immediate or delayed by 24 hours). The specimens were stored for 24 hours in 37 degrees C water, thermocycled for 250 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C, immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for another 24 hours, and sectioned longitudinally. For both enamel and dentin margins, dye solution penetration at the tooth/composite interface was scored from 0 to 4 under stereoscopy at original magnification x 20. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P<.05). RESULTS: Significantly lower leakage scores were recorded for teeth restored with microfilled composite and finished under wet conditions after 24 hours (P<.01). No significant differences were found among the hybrid composite groups. CONCLUSION: For microfilled composite restorations on dentin margins, delayed wet finishing with diamond burs resulted in significantly lower microleakage scores than all other finishing protocols. Hybrid composite restorations had equivalent levels of microleakage regardless of the finishing method.     

Effect of dentin deproteinization on microleakage of Class V composite restorations

The role of the collagen fibers in dentin adhesion has not clearly been established. Therefore, this laboratory study evaluated the microleakage at resin-dentin and resin-enamel interfaces of Class V composite restorations after etching enamel and dentin with phosphoric acid (H3PO4) or after etching with H3PO4 followed by deproteinization with 5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) to prevent the formation of a hybrid layer. Ten extracted human molars were used to prepare standardized Class V cavities on both buccal and lingual surfaces. The teeth were randomly divided in two groups: 1) Class V cavities that were etched with H3PO4 for 15 seconds; b) Class V cavities that were etched with H3PO4 for 15 seconds followed by collagen removal with 5% NaOCl for two minutes. The cavities were restored using the Prime & Bond 2.1 bonding system and TPH resin composite. The specimens were stored in water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C and thermocycled 500 times between water baths kept at 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C. After thermocycling, specimens were immersed in a 0.5% aqueous solution of basic fuchsin for 24 hours. Three longitudinal sections of each restoration were obtained and examined with a stereomicroscope for qualitative evaluation of microleakage. The data were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranked tests. Extra specimens were analyzed with the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Occlusal margins (enamel margins) resulted in statistical lower degree of leakage than gingival margins (dentin/cementum margins) in both treatment groups. For each type of margin, there were no statistically significant differences between the etched and the etched and deproteinized groups. Under the SEM, occlusal surfaces showed no detachment between enamel and dentin, while dentin/cementum resulted in gap formation.     

Effect of insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different insertion techniques and adhesive systems on microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight human molars were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 12). Standardized mixed Class V cavities (enamel and dentin margins) were prepared at the CEJ. A total-etch (Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose) and a self-etching (iBond) adhesive system were evaluated using either an incremental or single-step (bulk) insertion technique. The preparations were restored with Esthet*X micromatrix hybrid composite. The teeth were thermocycled 1000 cycles, immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 h, and invested in acrylic resin. The specimen blocks were then sectioned longitudinally, with dye penetration (microleakage) examined with a 20X binocular microscope. Enamel and dentin margins were scored separately for microleakage using an ordinal ranking system. Results were analyzed using non-parametric tests at a p < 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Significance was exhibited between the groups (adhesive material/insertion technique) at the coronal and apical margins. At the coronal margin, the total-etch adhesive/incremental insertion group exhibited significantly less leakage than the other groups, while at the apical margin, the total-etch adhesive/incremental insertion group showed significantly less leakage than the self-etching adhesive/bulk insertion group. Significantly less leakage was found at the coronal margins compared to the apical margins of the material/technique groups. CONCLUSION: The use of a total-etch adhesive system and incremental insertion of composite significantly reduced microleakage at the coronal and apical margins of Class V composite restorations.     

Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations

BACKGROUND: The authors clinically examined two restorative materials to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries. METHODS: Forty subjects, each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars, took part in this study. Each patient received one Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam. The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month, one-year, two-year and three-year recall appointments. On exfoliation, teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins. RESULTS: The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations (P < .05). Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinically as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars. However, the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam.     

Influence of ZOE temporary restorations on microleakage in composite restorations

This study investigated the influence of zinc-oxide eugenol (ZOE) temporary restorations on microleakage in composite restorations. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 32 freshly extracted, non-carious human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of eight teeth. Specimens in Group 1 (control) received no temporary restoration. Group 2 and 3 specimens were covered with IRM (Type III ZOE cement) mixed at powder:liquid (P:L) ratio of 10g:1g and 10g:2g, respectively. Specimens in Group 4 were covered with poly-carboxylate cement (eugenol-free) mixed at a P:L ratio of 2.85g:1g. The temporary restorations were removed mechanically with an ultrasonic scaler after one week storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C. The preparations were washed and restored with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus and Z100 according to manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were finished, thermally stressed for 400 cycles and subjected to dye penetration testing. Results were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at a significance level of 0.05. At both enamel and dentin margins, the microleakage associated with Group 3 was significantly greater than for Groups 1, 2 and 4. For Groups 1 and 4, leakage at the dentin margins was significantly greater than in enamel margins. For the groups pretreated with IRM, no significant difference in dye penetration scores was observed between enamel and dentin. Pre-treatment with IRM mixed at a P:L ratio of 10g:2g significantly increased microleakage and is not recommended clinically.     

Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites

This in vitro study evaluated gingival wall microleakage in packable and microhybrid conventional composite restorations with and without a flowable composite liner. Each group was evaluated with gingival margins situated in both enamel and cementum/dentin. Two hundred and forty Class II cavities were prepared in extracted third molars, half with gingival margins in enamel and half with margins in dentin/cementum. In groups of 30, restoration was undertaken with packable alone (3M Filtek P60), conventional alone (3M Z250), packable plus flowable liner (3M Filtek Flow) and conventional plus flowable liner. All used 37% phosphoric acid etch and Scotchbond 1 (3M) as the bonding system. After restoration, the teeth were thermocycled (between 5 degrees C, 37 degrees C and 60 degrees C) 1,500 times, soaked in 0.1% methylene blue, sectioned and microleakage from the gingival margin scored. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. There was no significant difference between systems in terms of leakage scores when gingival margins were situated in enamel (p=0.70). All restorations with margins in cementum/dentin leaked significantly more than those with margins in enamel (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between leakage scores of 3M Z250 and Filtek P60 with cementum/dentin gingival margins (p=0.68). Use of a flowable composite liner (3M Filtek Flow) against cementum/dentin was associated with increased microleakage (p<0.001). In this study, leakage scores suggest that gingival margins should be placed in enamel. The conventional and packable resin composites tested were not associated with differences in microleakage. Leakage data do not support the use of flowable resin composite linings in Class II resin composite restorations.     

Microleakage of Compoglass-F and Dyract-AP compomers in Class V preparations after salivary contamination

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of salivary contamination on the microleakage within Class V preparations of teeth restored with either Compoglass-F/Syntac SC and Dyract-AP/Prime and Bond 2.1. METHODS: Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in cementum were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted human permanent molar teeth. Preparations were distributed randomly into 4 treatment groups (N = 16) consisting of the two compomers and their respective bonding agents with and without salivary contamination. After treatment, the samples were stored in tap water for 24 hours, thermocycled, stained with dye, sectioned, and scored for microleakage. RESULTS: Salivary contamination had no significant effect on enamel microleakage but significantly increased both linear and penetrating microleakage versus non-contaminated for both compomer/dentin bonding systems. CONCLUSION: These data indicate salivary contamination adversely effects gingival but not enamel microleakage when Class V restorations are restored with either Compoglass F/Syntac SC or Dyract-AP/Prime and Bond 2.1.     

Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners

The use of flowable composites as liners in Class II packable composites has been suggested by some manufacturers. However, the contributions of this technique are unproven. This study evaluated marginal microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations with and without the use of a flowable composite liner. A conventional microhybrid composite was used as a control. Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class II cavities was evaluated using 45Ca and autoradiographs. Fifty non-carious, restoration-free human molar teeth were used. Separate mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal Class II cavity preparations were made in each tooth. Gingival margins of all cavities were placed 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Four Packable composites (Alert, Surefil, Pyramid and Solitaire) and one conventional microhybrid composite (Renew) with their respective manufacturer's bonding agents were used to restore the cavities. One side of each tooth was restored with composite alone, while the other side was restored with the composite lined with that manufacturer's flowable liner. The restored teeth were thermally stressed and 45Ca was used to evaluate microleakage. Two independent evaluators scored leakage based on the autoradiographs. The results showed flowable composites helped reduce microleakage at gingival margins of Class II restorations (p < 0.05). Gingival margins had higher microleakage than occlusal margins (p < 0.05). Without flowable liners, three packable composites (Alert, Pyramid and Surefil) showed higher leakage (p < 0.05) than the microhybrid control. Only Solitaire packable composite without liner showed no significant difference in microleakage to the control (p > 0.05). Although the flowable liners help reduce microleakage, Alert and Pyramid packable composites with liners still showed higher leakage than the control (p < 0.05). Surefil and Solitaire packable composites with flowable liners showed no significant difference in microleakage (p > 0.05) to the control.     

Composite restorations: influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite linings on microleakage in vitro

This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage at enamel (occlusal) and dentin (gingival) margins of MOD resin composite restorations made with different incremental insertion techniques. MOD cavities were prepared on 60 extracted human molars with the proximal margins placed 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. All teeth were acid-etched and treated with One-Step adhesive, then restored with a hybrid resin composite (Renew) with and without a flowable composite (AEliteflo) or a self-curing composite (Bisfil 2B) as the first increment in the proximal boxes. The time of placement of the second increment in relation to curing of the first increment was also varied. After polishing, the teeth were soaked in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and evaluated for dye penetration. None of the restorative techniques prevented microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins. However, microleakage at dentin margins were significantly reduced by the use of a flowable composite as the first increment in the proximal boxes. Time of placement in relation to curing had no influence on microleakage. Microleakage was lower at enamel margins than at dentin margins; however, besides microleakage at the enamel-restoration interface, 37 of the 60 restored teeth (62%) displayed at least one white line in enamel adjacent to the composite restoration.