title: Microleakage and enamel finish.
abstract: Cavity preparations that are finished with hand instruments allow significantly less marginal leakage than those which are completed only with rotary instruments. This does not mean that hand-instruments walls are perfectly smooth; it only means that these walls allow less marginal leakage. Cavity preparations restored with composite resin showed more marginal leakage than those restored with amalgam. Also, the degree of marginal leakage was greater in cavity preparations restored with composite resin than in those restored with amalgam. Cavity preparations are more prone to marginal leakage at sharply defined cavosurface acute angles than at the smooth or straight surfaces of the cavity. This pattern of marginal leakage was true for both amalgam restorations and composite restorations, but the degree of marginal leakage was greater when composite resin was used as a restorative material. Since less marginal leakage was found in the finished cavity preparations, it is obvious that all cavity preparations must be finished with hand instruments. This may not completely eliminate the problem of marginal leakage, but it will reduce the potential secondary caries both in degree and frequency. Also, since sharply defined acute angles did exhibit more marginal leakage, this part of the cavity preparation needs special attention. With amalgam and composite restorations at least, these angles should not be sharply defined but should be slightly round, so that better condensation of restorative materials can be obtained. This may reduce the degree of marginal leakage.
mesh_terms: D003188:Composite Resins; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D006801:Humans; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; D003723:Dental Amalgam