[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aims& Scopes
Journal News
publication ethics::
Abstracting and Indexing::
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
For Authors::
Call for Papers
Submission Instruction
Submission Form
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Information
Registration Form
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..

Citation Indices from GS

AllSince 2020
Citations1010
h-index11
i10-index00
..
:: Volume 3, Issue 3 (9-2025) ::
cofs 2025, 3(3): 48-54 Back to browse issues page
In vitro comparison of cervical microleakage of Class II composite restorations performed by different techniques
Nasrin Tayebghasemi , Sami Rafiei * , Negar Ghiasvand
Department of periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Isf.c, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract:   (220 Views)
Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the snowplow, open sandwich with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and flowable composite liner techniques for the reduction of cervical microleakage of posterior Class II composite restorations.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 60 class II cavities were prepared in 30 sound extracted premolars. The gingival floor of the cavities was placed 1 mm below the dentin-enamel junction. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups (n=15). The enamel margin was etched, and SE Bond was applied. The teeth were restored with x-tra fil in group 1 (control), x-tra base + x-tra fil (snowplow technique) in group 2, RMGI + x-tra fil (open sandwich technique) in group 3, and x-tra fil + x-tra base (flowable composite liner) in group 4. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 2% Fuchsin for 24 hours, and were then sectioned. Cervical microleakage of restorations was scored under a stereomicroscope at 20X magnification, and analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (α=0.05).  
Results: The microleakage of the snowplow (P<0.001), open sandwich (P=0.003), and flowable composite liner (P=0.05) groups were significantly higher than that of the control group. The microleakage of the snowplow technique was also significantly higher than that of the flowable composite liner (P=0.047). No other significant differences were found (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Within the study limitations, the results indicated that the snowplow, open sandwich with RMGI, and flowable composite liner techniques were not effective in reducing cervical microleakage of class II composite restorations.

 
Full-Text [PDF 388 kb]   (52 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Oral Medicine
Received: 2025/09/16 | Accepted: 2025/09/11 | Published: 2025/09/11
References
1. Ranka S, Rao AS, Shah U, Solanki D, Pawar AM, Reda R, et al. Comparative evaluation of two different fiber-reinforced composite materials in class 1 post-endodontic restorations in molars - a randomized clinical study. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(21):7858. [DOI:10.3390/ma15217858]
2. Canik G, Ulusoy N, Orhan K. Evaluation of microvoid and microleakage potential of bulk-fill resin composites in MOD restorations. Coatings. 2024;14(3):329. [DOI:10.3390/coatings14030329]
3. Sari C, Akgul S, Bala O. Does different application modes of universal adhesives with universal resin composites affect the microleakage in class V cavities? An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1367. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-05138-0]
4. Al-Boni R, Raja OM. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(3):152-155. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.71649]
5. Basavanna R, Garg A, Kapur R. Evaluation of gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15(2):166-169. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.94590]
6. Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 2011;36(2):213-221. [DOI:10.2341/10-215-L]
7. Moazzami S, Sarabi N, Hajizadeh H, Majidinia S, Li Y, Meharry M, et al. Efficacy of four lining materials in sandwich technique to reduce microleakage in class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2014;39(3):256-263. [DOI:10.2341/11-495-L]
8. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res. 1990;69(6):1240-1243.. [DOI:10.1177/00220345900690060301]
9. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL. Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro Class II composite restorations. J Dent. 1993;21(3):158-162. [DOI:10.1016/0300-5712(93)90026-M]
10. Hembree JH Jr. Microleakage at the gingival margin of class II composite restorations with glass-ionomer liner. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61(1):28-30 [DOI:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90103-0]
11. Prati C. Early marginal microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 1989;5(6):392-398. [DOI:10.1016/0109-5641(89)90107-3]
12. Summitt JB. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence, 2006.
13. Tredwin CJ, Stokes A, Moles DR. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30(1):32-38.
14. Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, Caputo AA, White SN. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2012;37(3):290-298. [DOI:10.2341/11-106-L]
15. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012;40(6):500-505 [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.015]
16. DaneshKazemi A, Davari A, Modaresi J, Dastjerdi F, Darezereshki M. Effect of flowable composite on Microleakage of packable resin composites in class II cavities.J Inflamm Dis.2009;13(3):e155481.
17. Sadeghi M. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs. Indian J Dent Res. 2009;20(2):159-163. [DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.52891]
18. Olmez A, Oztas N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2004;29(6):713-719.
19. Amita DP, Rushikesh M, Ashish M, Deepak J, Sudha M, Adish S. Microleakage of Class Ii Packable Resin Composite Lined With Conventional Gic, Flowable Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study. Unique Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences 2014;2(4):112-116.
20. Shafiei F, Akbarian S. Microleakage of nanofilled resin-modified glass-ionomer/silorane- or methacrylate-based composite sandwich Class II restoration: effect of simultaneous bonding. Oper Dent. 2014;39(1):E22-E30 [DOI:10.2341/13-020-L]
21. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Oper Dent. 2009;34(3):306-311. [DOI:10.2341/08-91]
22. Stockton LW, Tsang ST. Microleakage of Class II posterior composite restorations with gingival margins placed entirely within dentin. J Can Dent Assoc. 2007;73(3):255.
23. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. An alternative method to reduce polymerization shrinkage in direct posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133(10):1387-1398. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0055]
24. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, de Boer T, Pesschier D, Bronkhorst E. Voids and porosities in class I micropreparations filled with various resin composites. Oper Dent. 2003;28(1):9-14.
25. Guéders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, Geerts SO. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent. 2006;31(4):450-455. [DOI:10.2341/05-55]
26. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2004;29(3):301-308.
27. Ahmadi Zenouz G, Esmi F, Zaboli A, Khafri S, Amiri Daneshvar F, Hedayati Marzbali M. Effect of Three Restorative Techniques on Gingival Microleakage of Silorane-based Composite in Class Restorations. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2015; 25 (126) :102-110
28. Oliveira LC, Duarte S Jr, Araujo CA, Abrahão A. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress-absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2010;26(3):e159-e169. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.076]
29. Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL, Broome JC. Summitt's fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 4th ed. Hanover Park: Quintessence , 2013.
30. Bagheridoust E, Zirak‐Saeedi E, Sabouri S, Mohammadi L. Effect of Snowplow Technique and Flowable Composite Thickness on Microleakage and Interfacial Adaptation of Composite Restorations: An In Vitro Study. Oper Dent. 2024;49(1):E40-E49. doi:10.2341/23-032.
31. Bore Gowda V, Sreenivasa Murthy BV, Hegde S, Venkataramanaswamy SD, Pai VS, Krishna R. Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study. Scientifica (Cairo). 2015;2015:896507. [DOI:10.1155/2015/896507]
32. Soubhagya M, Goud KM, Deepak BS, Thakur S, Nandini TN, Arun J. Comparative in vitro evaluation of internal adaptation of resin-modified glass ionomer, flowable composite and bonding agent applied as a liner under composite restoration: A scanning electron microscope study. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(4):27-31.
33. Payne JH 4th. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999;23(2):123-130.
34. Feiz A, Sajedi M, Jafari N, Swift EJ. Evaluation of microleakage in Class II composite restorations: Bonded-base and bulk-fill techniques. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021; 18:89. [DOI:10.4103/1735-3327.328757]
35. Majety KK, Pujar M. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(4):414-417. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.87215]
36. Arora V, Kundabala M, Parolia A, Thomas MS, Pai V. Comparison of the shear bond strength of RMGIC to a resin composite using different adhesive systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(2):80-83. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.66716]
37. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater. 2008;24(1):90-101. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009]
38. Mitsui FH, Bedran-de-Castro AK, Ritter AV, Cardoso PE, Pimenta LA. Influence of load cycling on marginal microleakage with two self-etching and two one-bottle dentin adhesive systems in dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5(3):209-216.
39. Aljamhan AS, Alhazzaa SA, Albakr AH, Habib SR, Zafar MS. Comparing the Ability of Various Resin-Based Composites and Techniques to Seal Margins in Class-II Cavities. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(17):2921 [DOI:10.3390/polym13172921]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tayebghasemi N, Rafiei S, Ghiasvand N. In vitro comparison of cervical microleakage of Class II composite restorations performed by different techniques. cofs 2025; 3 (3) :48-54
URL: http://cofs.khuisf.ac.ir/article-1-107-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 3, Issue 3 (9-2025) Back to browse issues page
Contemporary Orofacial Science Contemporary Orofacial Science
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 39 queries by YEKTAWEB 4722