AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four photoactivation systems [quartz tungsten halogen (QTH), light-emitting diode (LED), argon ion laser (AL), and plasma arc curing PAC)] on cementum/dentin and enamel microleakage of Class II restorations using a microhybrid [Z250-3M ESPE] and two packable composites [(SureFil-Dentsply and Tetric Ceram HB-Ivoclair/Vivadent]. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three hundred sixty "vertical-slot Class II cavities" were prepared at the mesial surface of bovine incisors using a 245 carbide bur in a highspeed handpiece. Specimens were divided into twelve groups (composite-photoactivation systems). Half of the specimens had the gingival margin placed in enamel (n=15) and the other half in cementum/dentin (n=15). Composites were inserted and cured in 2 mm increments according to manufacturers' recommended exposure times. After polishing, the samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned, and evaluated at the gingival margins. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the photoactivation systems and among resin composites (p>0.05). Microleakage was not significantly affected by location (enamel vs. cementum/dentin, p>0.05). These findings suggested neither the photoactivation systems nor the resin composite types might have an effect on the microleakage at gingival margins Class II cavities.
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four photoactivation systems [quartz tungsten halogen (QTH), light-emitting diode (LED), argon ion laser (AL), and plasma arc curing PAC)] on cementum/dentin and enamel microleakage of Class II restorations using a microhybrid [Z250-3M ESPE] and two packable composites [(SureFil-Dentsply and Tetric Ceram HB-Ivoclair/Vivadent]. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three hundred sixty "vertical-slot Class II cavities" were prepared at the mesial surface of bovine incisors using a 245 carbide bur in a highspeed handpiece. Specimens were divided into twelve groups (composite-photoactivation systems). Half of the specimens had the gingival margin placed in enamel (n=15) and the other half in cementum/dentin (n=15). Composites were inserted and cured in 2 mm increments according to manufacturers' recommended exposure times. After polishing, the samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned, and evaluated at the gingival margins. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the photoactivation systems and among resin composites (p>0.05). Microleakage was not significantly affected by location (enamel vs. cementum/dentin, p>0.05). These findings suggested neither the photoactivation systems nor the resin composite types might have an effect on the microleakage at gingival margins Class II cavities.