AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage in class II cavities restored with dental composite by varying the thickness of two flowable composite resins and the restorative technique. METHODS: A total of 130 cavities were prepared on proximal surfaces of bovine teeth and randomly divided in 13 groups. Twelve experimental groups were performed using flowable composite resin as the liner, and they were divided according to the type of flowable composite resin (Filtek Z350 Flow-Z350F and SureFil SDR Flow-SUR), the thickness of the flowable composite (0.5, 1, or 2 mm), and the restorative technique (flowable composite applied at the cavosurface angle or amelodentinal junction) (n = 10). A control group was performed without using a flowable composite. Following restorative procedures and thermocycling, the samples were immersed in Methylene Blue for 2 h, and prepared for analysis in an absorbance spectrophotometer. All results were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the flowable composites (P > 0.05). The restorative techniques influenced microleakage and were flowable composite dependent (P ≤ 0.05). The lower thickness of the flowable composite provided less microleakage (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use a lower thickness of a flowable composite resin provided less microleakage, suggesting a better sealing tooth-restoration interface.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage in class II cavities restored with dental composite by varying the thickness of two flowable composite resins and the restorative technique. METHODS: A total of 130 cavities were prepared on proximal surfaces of bovine teeth and randomly divided in 13 groups. Twelve experimental groups were performed using flowable composite resin as the liner, and they were divided according to the type of flowable composite resin (Filtek Z350 Flow-Z350F and SureFil SDR Flow-SUR), the thickness of the flowable composite (0.5, 1, or 2 mm), and the restorative technique (flowable composite applied at the cavosurface angle or amelodentinal junction) (n = 10). A control group was performed without using a flowable composite. Following restorative procedures and thermocycling, the samples were immersed in Methylene Blue for 2 h, and prepared for analysis in an absorbance spectrophotometer. All results were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the flowable composites (P > 0.05). The restorative techniques influenced microleakage and were flowable composite dependent (P ≤ 0.05). The lower thickness of the flowable composite provided less microleakage (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use a lower thickness of a flowable composite resin provided less microleakage, suggesting a better sealing tooth-restoration interface.