Evaluation of microleakage in class-II bulk-fill composite restorations

Abstract

Background/purposeDespite the clinical appeal of restoring deep class II cavities in single increment using bulk-fill resin composite, sealing of bulk-filled composite restorations is a concern. This study evaluated interfacial adaptation of bulk-fill composite restoration to axial wall and gingival floor of class II cavities using cross-polarization optical coherence tomography (CP-OCT). Materials and methodsBox-shaped class II cavities were prepared in extracted molars and divided into three groups (n = 7) according to adhesive used; Clearfil SE Bond 2 (SE2), Tetric-N Bond Self-Etch (TSE) or Tetric-N Bond Universal (TNU). All adhesives were applied in self-etch mode and according to manufacturers' recommendation. Then, preparations were bulk-filled with Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative resin composite and immersed in a contrast agent. Tomographic images of axial wall and gingival floor of each restoration were obtained by CP-OCT (IVS-300, Santec) with a central wavelength of 1330 nm and were imported to an image analysis software to quantify microleakage. ResultsMann–Whitney U test showed statistically significant difference in microleakage percentage between the groups at both axial wall and gingival floor (p < 0.05). SE2 group had the lowest percentage of microleakage (p < 0.05), as only few cross-sections showed areas of reflections from contrast agent penetrating into axial wall (8.23 ± 6.8) and gingival floor (7.07 ± 4.1), followed by TNU group (18.13 ± 12.9 axially and 30.61 ± 11.9 gingivally). Microleakage was frequently observed at the axial wall and gingival floor of TSE group, showing the highest percentages of 25.50 ± 12.5 and 36.97 ± 10.2, respectively (p < 0.05). ConclusionAll tested groups exhibited different extent of interfacial microleakage, however, two-step self-etch adhesive yielded superior adaptation in comparison to one-step self-etch adhesive and universal adhesive.