Effect of two different restorative techniques using resin-based composites on microleakage.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate in vitro the extent of microleakage of Class II cavities restored with two different brands of resin-based composite, one hybrid (Tetric Ceram) and the other "packable" (Surefil) taking into account two variables: the localization of the margins and the insertion technique.


METHODS
100 bovine teeth, recently extracted, had standardized Class II slot cavities prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces with the gingival floor located on enamel or dentin, for a total 200 cavities. The teeth were randomly divided into eight groups of 25 teeth each (25 restorations in each group): (1) margin on dentin, restored with Surefil, bulk insertion; (2) margin on dentin, restored with Tetric Ceram, bulk insertion; (3) Margin on enamel, restored with Surefil, incremental technique; (4) margin on enamel, restored with Tetric Ceram, incremental technique; (5) margin on enamel, restored with Surefil, bulk insertion; (6) margin on enamel, restored with Tetric Ceram, bulk insertion; (7) margin on dentin, restored with Surefil, incremental technique; (8) margin on dentin, restored with Tetric Ceram, incremental technique. After this procedure, the teeth were subjected to 1000 thermocycles, stained with 2% methylene blue solution, and then sectioned in the mesiodistal direction. Dye penetration at tooth/restoration interface was scored based upon the extent of the dye using a light stereoscope x 35.


RESULTS
All groups showed considerable levels of microleakage at both dentin and enamel margins (P < 0.05). Restorations with margins in enamel using the hybrid resin-based composite with the incremental technique did not show statistically significant differences when compared to bulk placement. However, restorations with hybrid resin-based composite have significantly less microleakage than either bulk or incremental technique for the "packable" resin-based composite Surefil. As for the margins in dentin, Tetric Ceram in bulk placement did not differ from the incremental technique and Tetric in bulk placement had significantly less microleakage than Surefil either bulk or incremental technique. The hybrid resin-based composite with margins in dentin and incremental technique showed less microleakage than the "packable" resin in bulk placement.


CONCLUSIONS
The two types of resin-based composites, hybrid and "packable" were unable to completely prevent microleakage. The study demonstrated the difficulty in sealing a proximal margin.
Aranha
Ana Ceclia Corrêa
AC
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Piracicaba, University of Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Pimenta
Luiz André Freire
LA
D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D003188:Composite Resins; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000379:methods; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D003188:Composite Resins; C403464:SureFil packable composite; C121818:Tetric ceram