Journal of Dental Medicine

---

Posterior composite restorations, due to polymerization contraction, result in microleakage. Different methods have presented to reduce this phenomena. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of flowable and condensable composites to reduce microleakage. Seventy extracted human teeth were prepared with proximal class II cavities with gingival margin 1 mm below CEJ. The teeth randomly were divided into 7 groups. Groups I & II were restored with a dentin bonding (DB) agent plus a Prodigy condensable (Kerr Co.) composite, placing incremental or bulky, respectively.. In groups IK IV, V a dentin bonding agent was applied and then cavities were restored with Tetric flow composite resin as a base plus either a hybrid composite (Tetric ceram, Vivadent Co.) or a Prodigy condensable composite (Cond), placing bulky or incremental. Groups VI and VII were restored with a resin modified glass ionomer (GI) (Fuji II Lc Co.) as a base plus either Prodigy condensable or Tetric ceram. Restorations were polished, thermocycled, and immersed in 0.3% basic fushin. After that samples were sectioned and studied under a stereomicroscope to evaluate dye penetration. Results showed that all restorations showed some degree of microleakage and according to kruskall- wallis statistical analysis, there were not any significant differences between all groups (P-0.051). Then fore pair comparison, between groups. Mann-Whitney analysis was used and no statistical difference was observed. However. Gh DB- Tetric group showed the least microleakage and DB+ Cond (bulk) the most one. Due to lack of an" statistical difference among different materials methods, it is concluded that no method or restorative material have been able to eliminate microleakage in margins completely yet, and using a flowable composite resin, in place of resin modified glass ionomer or using a condensable composite, instead of conventional In brid composites, do not have any effect

---

Background and Aim: Because of polymerization shrinkage and high viscosity of posterior composites, there are some difficulties in using them in posterior restorations. Several methods have been represented to reduce the effect of shrinkage. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of curing flowable composites under condensable ones in adaptation and microleakage reduction of posterior composite restorations.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, forty class II MO cavities were prepared on extracted intact molar and premolar human teeth. Gingival margins were placed 1 mm apical to CEJ. The teeth were divided into two groups. In group 1, flowable composite (Filek Flow, 3M, ESPE, USA) with 0.5-1 mm thickness was applied and cured following application of bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M, ESPE, USA). The rest of the cavity was filled by condensable composite (p60, 3M, ESPE, USA). In group 2 the flowable composite was not cured, and the condensable composite was applied in two increments. After light curing of composites, all the specimens were thermocycled and then immersed in 0.3% basic fuschin. Specimens were sectioned and evaluated for degree of dye penetration under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney test with p<0.05 as the level of significance.

Results:. There was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding microleakage.

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, neither cured nor uncured flowable composite under condensable composite can omit microleakage in posterior composite restorations.

---

Background and Aim: Microleakage has been always a major concern in restorative dentistry. The curing contraction of composites still presents a problem with controlling microleakage and postoperative sensitivity. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of flowable and dual-cure resin composite liners on gingival microleakage of packable resin composite restorations.

Materials and Methods: Sixty Class II cavities with cervical margins 1 mm below the CEJ were prepared in 30 extracted human molars. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups of 12 each. In control group, each tooth was restored incrementally with Tetric Ceram composite without applying any liner. In the second and forth groups, flowable materials- Tetric Flow and dual-cure composite resin cement Relay X ARC were placed respectively as a 1-mm thick gingival increment and cured before the resin composite restoration, whereas, in the third and fifth groups liners were cured with the first increment of packable composite.The restored teeth were stored for one week in distilled water at 37⁰C, and thermocycled between 5⁰C and 55⁰C, sealed with nail varnish except the tooth - composite interface in cervical restoration margins and immersed in 2% basic fuchsin for 24 hours. Dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope with 28x magnification. The data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with p<0.05 as the level of significance.

Results: The results of this study indicated that there were significant statistical differences between control - cured flowable liner, control-flowable liner without separately curing, control-cured dual cure composite resin cement groups.However there were no significant differences between dual-cure composite resin cement without separately curing-control,cured flowable liner-cured dual cure composite resin cement, flowable liner without separately curing-dual cure composite resin cement without separately curing groups.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicated that none of techniques could thoroughly eliminate microleakage in gingival floor, however the effect of flowable or a dual-cure liner on reducing the gingival microleakage was found to be statistically significant in tested restorative material.