OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare in Class V composite restorations marginal leakage measurements obtained with microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations. METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared on 10 human molars and restored using Optibond FL (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and Premise Flowable (Kerr). Sealing ability was evaluated by assessing silver-nitrate penetration depth along enamel and dentin margins. Leakage was quantified using a scoring system. Micro-CT analysis provided 502 cross-sectional images for each tooth. Microleakage evaluation was performed first on three cross-sections corresponding to the sections examined by SEM, then on all 502 of the obtained micro-CT images. SEM observations were performed first at 20× magnification, then, if showing a zero score, at 80× magnification. Enamel and dentin microleakage scores assigned to corresponding sections through micro-CT and SEM (20×) were compared (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, α=0.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in leakage scores emerged between micro-CT and 20×-magnification SEM. Eight tooth sections that were given a zero score under SEM at 20× magnification showed to be infiltrated at the higher magnification (80×). For five teeth a higher score was assigned following scanning of 502 cross-sections than based on the observation of three sections. CONCLUSIONS: Micro-CT presents as a valid, nondestructive in vitro method to quantitatively evaluate marginal leakage of adhesive restorations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare in Class V composite restorations marginal leakage measurements obtained with microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations. METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared on 10 human molars and restored using Optibond FL (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and Premise Flowable (Kerr). Sealing ability was evaluated by assessing silver-nitrate penetration depth along enamel and dentin margins. Leakage was quantified using a scoring system. Micro-CT analysis provided 502 cross-sectional images for each tooth. Microleakage evaluation was performed first on three cross-sections corresponding to the sections examined by SEM, then on all 502 of the obtained micro-CT images. SEM observations were performed first at 20× magnification, then, if showing a zero score, at 80× magnification. Enamel and dentin microleakage scores assigned to corresponding sections through micro-CT and SEM (20×) were compared (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, α=0.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in leakage scores emerged between micro-CT and 20×-magnification SEM. Eight tooth sections that were given a zero score under SEM at 20× magnification showed to be infiltrated at the higher magnification (80×). For five teeth a higher score was assigned following scanning of 502 cross-sections than based on the observation of three sections. CONCLUSIONS: Micro-CT presents as a valid, nondestructive in vitro method to quantitatively evaluate marginal leakage of adhesive restorations.