PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various lining materials to reduce cervical marginal microleakage and internal voids within Class II resin-based composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 168 extracted molars were prepared with both moderate and deep Class II cavities. The teeth were then randomly divided into 14 groups and restored with direct composite or sandwich techniques using various lining materials [flowable composites, compomers and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGI)]. Following restoration, the teeth were stored for 24 hours, thermocycled, and placed in fuchsin dye for 24 hours. Subsequently, the teeth were sectioned in halves and observed through a stereomicroscope. Cervical microleakage and internal voids were assessed separately as the length ratio of dye penetration to the cervical wall and the area ratio of voids to sectioned restorations. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Flowable composite lining groups demonstrated either similar or more cervical microleakage than did their respective direct restoration groups. Groups lined with RMGIs showed similar or better marginal sealing than did their resin restoration groups. In deep cavities, Vivaglass Liner group showed the best marginal sealing. RMGI-lined groups exhibited more internal voids in deep restorations.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various lining materials to reduce cervical marginal microleakage and internal voids within Class II resin-based composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 168 extracted molars were prepared with both moderate and deep Class II cavities. The teeth were then randomly divided into 14 groups and restored with direct composite or sandwich techniques using various lining materials [flowable composites, compomers and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGI)]. Following restoration, the teeth were stored for 24 hours, thermocycled, and placed in fuchsin dye for 24 hours. Subsequently, the teeth were sectioned in halves and observed through a stereomicroscope. Cervical microleakage and internal voids were assessed separately as the length ratio of dye penetration to the cervical wall and the area ratio of voids to sectioned restorations. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Flowable composite lining groups demonstrated either similar or more cervical microleakage than did their respective direct restoration groups. Groups lined with RMGIs showed similar or better marginal sealing than did their resin restoration groups. In deep cavities, Vivaglass Liner group showed the best marginal sealing. RMGI-lined groups exhibited more internal voids in deep restorations.