Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System

Abstract

SUMMARYObjectivesTo determine microleakage of posterior Class I and II restorations using the SonicFill composite resin system.Methods and MaterialsEighty previously extracted third molars were randomly assigned to four preparation/restoration groups (n=20): Group A: Class I preparations restored with SonicFill system/bulk fill; Group B: Class II preparations restored with SonicFill system/bulk fill; Group C: Class I preparations restored with Herculite Ultra composite resin/incremental technique; and Group D: Class II preparations restored with Herculite Ultra composite resin/incremental technique. Class I preparations were approximately 3.0 mm in width buccolingually and 3.0 mm in depth. Class II preparations were approximately 3.0 mm in width buccolingually, 1.5 mm in axial depth, and 4.0 mm in gingival depth. In all groups, the enamel and dentin surfaces were conditioned with Kerr 37.5% phosphoric acid, followed by application of Optibond Solo Plus adhesive system. Following restoration, the specimens were thermocycled, immersed in methylene blue dye, and embedded in acrylic resin. Specimen blocks were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, with marginal dye penetration (microleakage) examined using a 20× binocular microscope. Class I and II restoration microleakage was scored separately using a 0-3 ordinal ranking system. Statistical analyses were conducted using nonparametric testing at the p < 0.05 level of significance.ResultsSignificantly less microleakage was associated with both Class I restorative groups (A and C), SonicFill bulk fill and Herculite Ultra incremental fill, compared to the Class II restorative groups (B and D), SonicFill/bulk fill and Herculite Ultra/incremental fill.ConclusionsAccording to the results of this study, the materials (SonicFill vs Herculite Ultra), C-factors, and insertion techniques (bulk vs incremental) did not appear to be significant influences with regard to marginal microleakage; however, the type of preparation cavity (Class I vs Class II) and the subsequent bonding surface (enamel vs dentin [cementum]) proved to be significant factors.