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.     

Microleakage study of flowable composite resin systems

The purpose of this in vitro microleakage study was to evaluate four low-viscosity composite resin systems. Each resin system included the corresponding bonding agent for each respective flowable composite. A hybrid material was used as a control. A total of 75 noncarious, freshly extracted human teeth were prepared with a Class 5 occlusal preparation and a gingival preparation at the cementoenamel junction. The materials were inserted according to the manufacturers' recommendations using the single-component bonding agent for each system. Teeth were thermocycled 800 times between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with 30-second dwell times. The teeth were then coated with nail polish 1 mm short of the restoration, placed in a basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours, and sectioned with a diamond wheel. Enamel and dentin/cementum margins were analyzed for microleakage on a scale of 0 (no leakage) to 3 (axial wall). Results were evaluated with the Fisher's exact test. The results of the study indicate that there was no leakage at the enamel margin of any restorations. No statistically significant differences in microleakage were found in dentin/cementum margins among the samples in the experimental group or between the experimental group and control group. The results indicate flowable composites demonstrate resistance to microleakage in both enamel and cementum/dentin margins similar to TPH hybrid composite.     

Flowable composites as "filled adhesives:" a microleakage study

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the microleakage at dentin margins of a flowable resin composite associated with an adhesive, either light cured separately or co-cured, in Class V cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty four recently extracted human molars were prepared with standardized box-shaped Class V cavities of 3.0 mm (mesial-distal), 2.0 mm (occlusal-gingival), and 2.0 mm depth with margins located on enamel and dentin/cementum on the buccal or lingual surfaces. The cavities were randomly assigned into three groups (n=8): Group I - Single Bond + Filtek Z250 (control); Group II - Single Bond + Filtek Flow (light cured separately) + Filtek Z250; and Group III - Single Bond + Filtek Flow co-cured (light cured simultaneously) + Filtek Z250. After being immersed in tap water for 24 h, the specimens were thermocycled (1000x, 5 degrees -55 degrees C, 30 sec dwell time) and immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for 24 h. The restorations were sectioned longitudinally and gingival margins were evaluated for microleakage using a 0-4 scale. Data were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test at p<0.05. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference at p = 0.0044 between Groups 1 and 3 and Groups 2 and 3 was observed. Although Group 2 performed slightly better than Group 1, no significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION: The use of a flowable resin composite cured simultaneously with an adhesive yielded the worst results in this study. As no statistical differences were seen between Groups 1 and 2, the use of a flowable composite as a means of minimizing microleakage at dentin margins may be questioned.     

Evaluation of the cervical integrity during occlusal loading of Class II restorations

There are many concerns regarding the clinical behavior of packable composite restorations in Class II cavities, particularly when those restorations are subjected to axial mechanical loads. This study evaluated microleakage in vitro in proximal vertical "slot"-type cavities with walls located in enamel and dentin, filled with packable composite, associated or not associated with a flowable composite, a reinforced light-curing glass-ionomer or a compomer, after being submitted to occlusal load cycling. These preparations were subjected to either occlusal load cycling or no occlusal load cycling. Eighty human molars with enamel and dentin margins were treated with standardized cavity preparations (proximal vertical "slot" preparations). After completing the filling process using a packable composite (Filtek P60) with or without a cervical increment of flowable composite (Filtek flow), light-curing glass-ionomer (Vitremer) or compomer (Dyract AP), the molars were separated into two groups: control (without occlusal loading) and test, in which 4,000 one-second cycles of 150 N occlusal loading were applied. All 80 teeth were submitted to a microleakage test, then evaluated utilizing silver nitrate dye penetration. Significant statistical differences (Wilcoxon test, p<0.05) in the amount of leakage in enamel and dentin were found in both the control and test groups. After a paired comparison of the control and test groups, a significant statistical difference was found at the enamel level (Mann-Whitney test, p<0.05). In dentin, the only statistically significant difference found was the relation to the flow material. The Kruskal-Wallis test did not detect any statistically significant difference in the amount of leakage among the four materials studied, with a 5% level of significance for both enamel and dentin. Based on this data, it was concluded that restorations with margins located in dentin had greater microleakage than those restorations with margins located in enamel. When the samples were submitted to occlusal loading, they were negatively influenced, which increased microleakage values in enamel and dentin. There was no statistically significant difference among the four tested materials, when comparing their performance.     

Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study

Flowable resin materials have been suggested as liners beneath packable composites to improve marginal integrity. This investigation evaluated the effect of low-viscosity liners on microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations. Twenty Class II cavities were prepared in extracted third molars for each of four packable composites (Heliomolar HB, Prodigy Condensable, Surefil and Tetric Condense). Ten restorations were placed for each material with their corresponding bonding agent per manufacturer's suggestion; in addition, 10 were placed with the flowable liner recommended by the manufacturer for that material. Samples were finished, stored in distilled water for at least 24 hours and thermocycled for 1,000 cycles between 5 degrees and 55 degrees C with a one-minute dwell time. Apices were sealed with epoxy cement and the teeth were varnished to within 1 mm of the margins. Samples were placed in 0.5% basic fuschin dye for 24 hours, rinsed, embedded in resin and sectioned to produce multiple sections. Microleakage was rated (0-4 ordinal scale) at both the occlusal and cervical margins. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA for main effect and ranked sum analysis for pairwise testing (alpha = 0.05). All materials, either separately or in combination with a flowable liner, had greater leakage scores at the cervical margin compared to the occlusal margin. All packable systems tested did not yield a reduction in microleakage with the use of a flowable liner in vitro; however, the packable system with the flowable compomer used as a liner yielded significantly less overall microleakage compared to the three systems that used a resin composite liner.     

The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage in class V cavities

This in vitro study investigated the microleakage of flowable resin composite as a restorative material and as a liner (either light cured separately or co-cured with hybrid resin composite) in Class V cavities. A light-cured hybrid resin composite was used as a control. Twenty extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity outlines on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The occlusal margin of the cavities was on enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. One bottle adhesive system (Single Bond) was used after etching enamel and dentin with 34.5% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. The cavities were randomly divided into four groups of 10 each and restored according to the manufacturers' instructions: Group I-Hybrid resin composite (Z100); Group II-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow); Group III-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow)+Hybrid resin composite (Z100); light cured separately; Group IV-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow)+Hybrid resin composite (Z100); co-cured. The samples were thermocycled 200 times with a 30-second dwell time. They were then immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. The degree of dye penetration was recorded and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The results of this study indicate that there was no leakage at the occlusal margin for either restoration. Statistically significant differences were found among the groups at the gingival margin. No statistically significant difference was observed between the occlusal and gingival margins except in Group IV. The combination of flowable resin composite and hybrid composite light cured separately yielded the best result in this study. The most leakage was observed when this combination was co-cured. The resistance to microleakage of flowable resin composite as a restorative material is similar to that of hybrid resin composite.     

The effect of fiber placement or flowable resin lining on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of two fibers (polyethylene or glass) and a flowable resin liner on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II adhesive cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 40 extracted sound human molars. The cavity margins were below or above the CEJ. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration technique: group 1: restored with a resin composite (AP-X, Kuraray) in bulk after SE Bond (Kuraray) treatment; group 2: flowable resin liner (Protect Liner F, Kuraray) was used before composite restoration; in group 3, a polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) and in group 4, a glass fiber (everStick NET, StickTech) was placed into the bed of flowable resin before composite restoration. Samples were finished, stored in distilled water for 7 days at room temperature, and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C. After sealing the apices, the teeth were varnished within 1 mm of the margins and placed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h at 37 degrees C. After rinsing, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally through the restorations and microleakage was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Marginal penetration was scored on a 0 to 4 scale, and the data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Flowable resin, everStick NET, and Ribbond THM used in combination with flowable resin significantly reduced leakage at occlusal margins in cavities with enamel margins (p < 0.05). When the leakage values on cervical dentin margins were evaluated, there was no statistically significant difference among the tested groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of flowable composite alone or in combination with polyethylene or glass fibers reduces occlusal leakage in Class II adhesive cavities with enamel margins.     

Effect of photoactivation systems and resin composites on the microleakage of esthetic restorations

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four photoactivation systems [quartz tungsten halogen (QTH), light-emitting diode (LED), argon ion laser (AL), and plasma arc curing PAC)] on cementum/dentin and enamel microleakage of Class II restorations using a microhybrid [Z250-3M ESPE] and two packable composites [(SureFil-Dentsply and Tetric Ceram HB-Ivoclair/Vivadent]. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three hundred sixty "vertical-slot Class II cavities" were prepared at the mesial surface of bovine incisors using a 245 carbide bur in a highspeed handpiece. Specimens were divided into twelve groups (composite-photoactivation systems). Half of the specimens had the gingival margin placed in enamel (n=15) and the other half in cementum/dentin (n=15). Composites were inserted and cured in 2 mm increments according to manufacturers' recommended exposure times. After polishing, the samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned, and evaluated at the gingival margins. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the photoactivation systems and among resin composites (p>0.05). Microleakage was not significantly affected by location (enamel vs. cementum/dentin, p>0.05). These findings suggested neither the photoactivation systems nor the resin composite types might have an effect on the microleakage at gingival margins Class II cavities.     

The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities

This study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with three different types of flowable resin restorative material and compared the effects of using their respective manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to three equal groups of 16. The first eight teeth in each group were restored with one of the flowable restorative materials (Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, Admira Flow) using the manufacturer's recommended dentin adhesive (Single Bond, Prime & Bond NT, Admira Bond), and the remaining eight molars were restored using a different brand of dentin adhesive (Gluma Comfort Bond). The samples were thermocycled 200 times (5 degrees C-55 degrees C) with a one-minute dwell time. They were then immersed in a 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference at the occlusal margins for either restoration used with its respective dentin adhesive. At the gingival margins, there was a significant difference among all groups. Flowable ormocer (Admira Flow/Admira Bond) displayed the least leakage at the gingival margins. When these flowable restoratives were used with a different brand of dentin adhesive, statistically significant differences were observed both on enamel and dentin. None of the restoratives tested fully prevented leakage at the gingival margins. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among the restorative materials used with respect to the manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand except for Admira Flow restorative at the gingival margins. The gingival margins had significantly more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.05) except in the Admira Flow group, where microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins was almost equal.     

The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites

Microleakage has been a major concern in restorative dentistry. The curing contraction of composites still presents a problem with controlling microleakage and postoperative sensitivity. This study investigated the effect of flowable materials on gingival microleakage of microhybrid and packable resin composite restorations. Ninety Class II cavities with cervical margins 1 mm below the CEJ were prepared in 45 extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=15). In each group, one side of each tooth was restored incrementally with respective composites-SureFil, Filtek P60 and Tetric Ceram; whereas, on the other side, flowable materials-Dyract Flow, Filtek Flow or Tetric Flow-were placed respectively as a 1-mm thick gingival increment before the resin composite restoration. The restored teeth were stored for one week in distilled water at 37 degrees C, thermocycled between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours. Dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope at 10x magnification. The data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U-tests. The effect of flowable increments on reducing the gingival microleakage was found to be statistically significant for all restorative materials tested (p<0.05).     

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.     

Microleakage of Class V restorations using two different compomer systems: an in vitro study

This study compared the marginal microleakage of Class V cavities restored with Dyract-AP and F2000. Forty Class V cavity preparations were performed on extracted human teeth. As a negative control, twenty teeth were used without Class V preparations. The apical foramina of the teeth were sealed with a layer of varnish and amalgam restorations. Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel, and gingival margins in cementum or dentin that measured approximately three millimeters in width (gingival-occlusal) and length (mesial-distal), were prepared on the buccal surface of the teeth. Samples were divided randomly into 2 groups of 15, and restored per manufacturer's instructions using experimental primer/conditioner (PCC, D/C) and Single Bond Adhesive (3M). All restorations were polished with an abrasive finishing kit. After storage in 37 degrees C water for 24 hours, all specimens were thermocycled between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C for 500 cycles with a 30-second dwell time, followed by immersion in 0.2% basic fucsine for 24 hours. Teeth were then embedded in cold cure acrylic resin, sectioned longitudinally, and the dye penetration at the enamel and cementum margins were scored at 30x magnification. Evaluations were rated from 0 to 3 (0 = no leakage; 1 = dye penetration up to one-half of the preparation depth; 2 = dye penetration more than one-half preparation depth, but less than the axial wall; 3 = dye penetration along the axial wall). Both F-2000 and Dyract-AP indicated no leakage in the enamel margins. Dyract-AP showed no leakage at either the enamel or dentin margins. Fisher's Exact Test revealed that this difference in dentin margins was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Under the given conditions, Dyract-AP and F-2000 demonstrated resistance to microleakage in enamel, and showed Dyract-AP to be more resistant to microleakage in dentin than F-2000.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of microleakage of three acid-base luting cements versus one resin-bonded cement for Class V direct composite inlays

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Demineralized dentin beneath set cement may adversely affect microleakage under fixed restorations. PURPOSE: Microleakage of direct composite inlays cemented with acid-base cements and a methyl methacrylate resin cement were evaluated to determine their effect on the integrity of the underlying hybridized dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty Class V box preparations (3 mm x 3 mm x 1.5 mm) were precisely prepared in previously frozen bovine teeth with one margin in enamel and another margin in dentin. Direct composite inlays (EPIC-TMPT) for each preparation were divided into 4 groups of 15 specimens each and cemented with 3 acid-base cements (control group): Elite, Ketac-Cem, Hy-Bond Carbo-Cem, and 1 adhesive resin cement: C&B Metabond. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C before immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours. The dye penetration was measured on the sectioned specimens at the tooth-cement interface of enamel and cementum margins and recorded with graded criteria under light microscopy (Olympus Vanox-T) at original magnification x 50, 100, and 200. A Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney test at P<.05 were used to analyze leakage score. RESULTS: All cementum margins of the 3 acid-base cements tested demonstrated significantly higher leakage scores than cementum margins for inlays cemented with the resin cement tested(P<.01). No leakage along the tooth-cement interface was found for inlays retained with the adhesive resin cement. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the 3 acid-base cements tested exhibited greater microleakage at the cementum margins than did the adhesive resin cement that was tested.     

Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of three low-viscosity resin systems (Unibond, Single Bond, and Fluorseal), used as rebonding agents, and a specific surface-penetrating sealant (Fortify) to prevent microleakage in Class V resin composite restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the cervical margin in dentin and cementum were prepared on both the buccal and lingual surfaces of sound extracted premolars and restored with a hybrid light-cured resin composite. After finishing and polishing, restorations were randomly assigned to one of five equal groups (n = 10): a control, without surface sealing, and four experimental groups in which margins were etched and rebonded. Specimens were thermocycled, immersed in a 50% silver nitrate solution, sectioned longitudinally, and analyzed for leakage at the occlusal and cervical interfaces. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed significantly less leakage at the enamel margins for all groups. Fortify and Unibond were statistically similar and provided better marginal sealing at dentin and cementum interfaces. Fluorseal showed the poorest ability to prevent microleakage. CONCLUSION: The rebonding technique may substantially minimize microleakage at dentin and cementum margins of composite restorations, when a resin system with sufficiently low viscosity is used as a surface sealant, regardless of whether it has been specified for such a purpose.     

The leakage of Class II cavities restored with packable resin-based composites

Recently, new resin-based composites, called "packable" or "condensable" resin composites, are being promoted as amalgam alternatives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate leakage in Class II cavities restored with the five packable resin-based composites. On 45 freshly extracted human molars, cavities were prepared following a standardized pattern in which the Class II cavity had a length of 3.0 mm, width of 2.0 mm, and depth of 1.5 mm occlusally. The proximal box had an axial depth of 1.5 mm and a buccolingual width of 4.0 mm. The cervical margin was located 1.0 mm below the cement enamel junction (CEJ). The teeth were randomly divided into five groups of 8 each. The cavity surface was conditioned with 36% phosphoric acid, rinsed, excess water removed, and a dental bonding adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) was used for all the cavities. The teeth were then restored according to the manufacturer's instructions: Group 1, Surefil; Group 2, Solitaire; Group 3, Alert; Group 4, Filtek P60; and Group 5, Prodigy Condensable. After the restorations were completed, the specimens were finished and polished with an aluminum-oxide-coated disc, thermocycled, stained, sectioned, and viewed under a stereomicroscope for leakage at occlusal/enamel and gingival/dentin margins. All test groups showed that leakage of gingival/dentin margins were greater when compared with leakage of occlusal/enamel margins. At the occlusal/enamel margins, there were no significant differences between the materials; however, at gingival/dentin margins, Filtek P60 and Prodigy Condensable demonstrated less leakage, while Solitaire demonstrated greater leakage.     

In vivo and in vitro evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations with different matrix systems

PURPOSE: To investigate in vivo and in vitro Class II composite restorations performed with two matrix and wedge systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 23 patients, 59 with metallic matrices and wooden wedges (group 1) and 50 with polyester matrices and reflective wedges (group 2). All cavities were restored using Single Bond and P-60 (3M ESPE). In the metal matrix group, polymerization was performed from the occlusal, and in the polyester group through the reflective wedge. To assess microleakage, 40 proximal standard slot cavities were prepared in 20 noncarious human third molars. In the mesial cavity, the gingival margin was located at the enamel level, and in the distal cavity at the cementum/dentin. Specimens were randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) and restored with Single Bond, Z-250 (3M ESPE), and the same techniques used in the in vivo study: metal matrix/wooden wedge (group 1) and polyester matrix/reflective wedge (group 2). Specimens were thermocycled (500 times, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C), then isolated with nail varnish and immersed in fuchsin for 8 h. Specimens were sectioned longitudinally and microleakage was assessed under magnification (40X) using a standard scoring system. RESULTS: Data were subjected to the chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis H-test. Matrix systems presented similar results in the clinical evaluation and the in vitro microleakage test of Class II composite restorations. Dye leakage was minimal at enamel margins, and statistically lower (p < 0.05) than at cementum/dentin margins. CONCLUSION: The different matrix systems had no influence on clinical performance or in vitro sealing ability of Class II composite restorations.     

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 flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of four flowable composite linings on marginal microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with the margins above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II cavities were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 10). Group 1: One Step Plus/Aelite LS Packable; group 2: One Step Plus/Aelite Flow/Aelite LS Packable; group 3: Comfort Bond/Solitaire 2; group 4: Comfort Bond/Flowline/Solitaire 2; group 5: Solobond M/Grandio; group 6: Solobond M/Grandio Flow/Grandio; group 7: Admira Bond/Admira; Group 8: Admira bond/Admira Flow/Admira. After restoration, all teeth were stored for 24 h, thermocycled (at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C) 500 times, and soaked in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After soaking, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope. Gingival marginal microleakage and internal voids (at the gingival wall interface and in the cervical and the occlusal parts) were recorded. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U- and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Statistical analyses indicated that the use of flowable resin composites provided a reduction in microleakage in groups 6 and 8. Groups 2 and 4 showed fewer voids in the cervical area than without flowable composites. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that none of the materials tested was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage on the cervical wall. Flowable resin composites under nanohybrid (group 6) and ormocer (group 8) composites provided a significantly different reduction in microleakage compared to restorations without flowable liners. Fewer cervia voids were observed in packable composites with flowable liner (groups 2 and 4) than without flowable liner (groups 1 and 3s).