The influence of flowable composite liner on microleakage of class II packable composite resin restoration with different application techniques (Comparative study)


Background: This in vitro study was conducted to evaluate and compare the influence of flowable composite anddifferent application techniques of class II packable composite restoration on dentinal leakage.Materials and methods: Thirty human freshly-extracted Maxillary premolars were selected for this study. ConventionalClass II MOD cavities were prepared in the sample teeth which were then divided into five groups .Each groupconsist of ten boxes either MO or DO according to the restorative procedure used except group A which consist oftwenty boxes(ten teeth with MOD amalgam restoration). Group A: ten teeth where restored by amalgam- (SDIAustralia) high strength admix amalgam type.Group B: ten teeth in which the mesio-occlusal (MO) sides wererestored by {adhesive + flowable composite + one bulk packable composite (Filtek P60)}. Group C: ten teeth inwhich the disto-occlusal (DO) sides were restored by {adhesive +one bulk packable composite, (Filtek P60)}.Group D:ten teeth in which the mesio-occlusal (MO) sides were restored by {adhesive + flowable composite + successivebuild up technique for packable composite, (Filtek P60)}. Group E: ten teeth in which the disto-occlusal (DO) sideswere restored by {adhesive+ successive build up technique for packable composite, (Filtek P60)}. Afterthermocycling and immersion in 2% methylene blue, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally mesio-occluso-distaland dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicrscope, microleakage was recorded in mm.Results and Conclusions: ANOVA test and least significant difference (LSD) test were used to analyze the results, andthe results showed that the use of flowable composite resin as a liner with packable composite resin decreases theamount of dentinal microleakage, and the restorative technique of packable composite whether it is bulk build uptechnique, or incremental successive build up technique has no difference on the improvement of microleakgevalue, and the packable resin composite restoration whatever applied with different application techniques orrestored with or without flowable composite it still had or scored higher microleakage than amalgam restoration