• O K Hepdeniz and R B Ermis.
• Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
• Niger J Clin Pract. 2019 May 1; 22 (5): 633-641.

AimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate and correlate marginal adaptation and microleakage of different low-shrinking composites.Materials And MethodsStandardized class V cavities (n = 20/group) with occlusal margin in enamel and gingival margin in dentin were restored with low-shrinking silorane-based (Filtek Silorane) or methacrylate-based (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Grandio, Reflexions XLS, Tetric EvoCeram, Premise, Ceram-X Duo, Aelite LS Posterior) composites and a conventional composite (Filtek Z250). All teeth were stored in water (24 h), thermocycled (5000×), and mechanically loaded (60,000×). Marginal adaptation of epoxy resin replicas was analyzed using scanning electron microscope. Microleakage of the restoration was assessed by dye penetration on sectioned specimens under stereomicroscopy. Data were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test, with a significance of P < 0.05. Pearson's correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between results of margin analysis and microleakage.ResultsNo statistical difference in marginal gap formation was determined between Filtek Silorane and Z250. The lowest microleakage score at dentin margins was recorded for Filtek Silorane, which was not significantly different from that of all other groups. No similar ranking between the results of microleakage at enamel and dentin margins was observed for the materials tested. Marginal adaptation was not correlated to microleakage, except for Filtek Silorane, Grandio, and Filtek Z250.ConclusionsCompared to the conventional composite Filtek Z250, Filtek Silorane demonstrated no improvements with reduced marginal gap formation. Low-shrinking properties of composites appear to have no ability of sealing restoration margins and preventing leakage.

14 keywords...

hide…