STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Several techniques are proposed for the restoration of Class V cavities but there is no agreement in the literature as to which technique is more effective. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different techniques of composite increment placement on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four human molars were selected and prepared with standardized saucer-shaped cavity dimensions of 3.0 mm (occlusal-gingival), 2.0 mm (mesial-distal), and 2.0 mm (depth). The margins are in reference to the cemento-enamel junction with 1.5 mm being located on enamel and 1.5 mm on dentin. The cavities were randomly assigned into three groups (n=8) and restored with composites as follows: Group 1, the occlusal increment was placed and cured first followed by the gingival increment; Group 2, the gingival increment was placed and cured first followed by the occlusal increment; and Group 3, the cavities were restored with one bulk increment. Restorations were immediately finished and stored for 24 h in tap water. Specimens were subjected to thermocycling (1000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 30 s dwell time) and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 h in room temperature. After rinsing with running water, the restorations were sectioned longitudinally and enamel and dentin margins were evaluated and scored according to the microleakage on a 0-3 scale. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis test at p<0.05. RESULTS:Median of microleakage scores for all evaluated groups was zero. No statistical difference was observed among the three groups both in enamel (p = 0.5929) and dentin (p = 0.3679) margins CONCLUSION: The placement technique did not influence the marginal adaptation of moderate Class V restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: No differences on marginal adaptation were observed when restoring conservative Class V cavities using incremental or bulk placement techniques.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Several techniques are proposed for the restoration of Class V cavities but there is no agreement in the literature as to which technique is more effective. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different techniques of composite increment placement on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four human molars were selected and prepared with standardized saucer-shaped cavity dimensions of 3.0 mm (occlusal-gingival), 2.0 mm (mesial-distal), and 2.0 mm (depth). The margins are in reference to the cemento-enamel junction with 1.5 mm being located on enamel and 1.5 mm on dentin. The cavities were randomly assigned into three groups (n=8) and restored with composites as follows: Group 1, the occlusal increment was placed and cured first followed by the gingival increment; Group 2, the gingival increment was placed and cured first followed by the occlusal increment; and Group 3, the cavities were restored with one bulk increment. Restorations were immediately finished and stored for 24 h in tap water. Specimens were subjected to thermocycling (1000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 30 s dwell time) and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 h in room temperature. After rinsing with running water, the restorations were sectioned longitudinally and enamel and dentin margins were evaluated and scored according to the microleakage on a 0-3 scale. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis test at p<0.05. RESULTS: Median of microleakage scores for all evaluated groups was zero. No statistical difference was observed among the three groups both in enamel (p = 0.5929) and dentin (p = 0.3679) margins CONCLUSION: The placement technique did not influence the marginal adaptation of moderate Class V restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: No differences on marginal adaptation were observed when restoring conservative Class V cavities using incremental or bulk placement techniques.