Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Different Class V Cavity Preparation Restored with Composite in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study

Document Type : Original Article

Abstract

 Objective: To compare the effect of the cavity design and the location of the gingival wall, on
enamel and cementum on the microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations in primary molars. Materials
and Methods: Class V cavity was made on the buccal surface of sixty sound primary mandibular second molar in
this study. The teeth were divided into two main groups: Group A (Kidney shaped cavity) and Group B (Rectangle
shaped cavity). Each group was also subdivided into two subgroups, Subgroup A1; Kidney shape with gingival
margin on enamel, Subgroup A2; Kidney shape with gingival margin on cementum, Subgroup B1; Rectangle shape
with gingival margin on enamel and Subgroup B2; Rectangle shape with gingival margin on cementum. After
restoring all cavities with 3M™ Single Bond Universal Adhesive and Filtek™ Z250 XT (3M ESPE) composite, a
dye penetration test was performed to evaluate the microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins. Results:
Regarding the cavity design, a significant difference was found between the rectangle-shaped cavity design
(1.1±1.09) and the kidney design (0.733±0.94). Regarding the location of the gingival margin, there was a statically
significant difference between margins below the Cemento-enamel junction (2.30±0.98) and those above
(1.20±1.13). Conclusions: Lowering the surface area of the cavity, as in the Kidney shape, helps greatly in
minimizing the microleakage of composite restorations. Moreover, keeping the cervical margin in enamel as
possible aids in the reduction of microleakage and saving the marginal integrity. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics