Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study

• Published in: Scientifica (Cairo) 2015-01, Vol.2015 (2015), p.1-6
• Main Authors: Pai, Veena Suresh, Swapna, D. V., Hegde, Swaroop, Sreenivasa Murthy, B. V., Bore Gowda, Vedavathi, Krishna, Rashmi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2090-908X; 2090-908X
• DOI: 10.1155/2015/896507

Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best.