Issues‎ > ‎vol1n1‎ > ‎


Evaluation of microleakage in the gingival margin of class II resin composite restoration when using three placement techniques (An in vitro study)

Miwan S. Abdul-Rahman

College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani



Objective: To evaluate and compare the effect of bulk and layering composite filling techniques on the gingival microleakage in class II cavity.

Materials and methods:
Standardized 60 class II cavities were prepared in the proximal surfaces of thirty extracted non caries permanent molars and randomly were divided into two main groups A and B each composed of 30 cavities, for group (A) the gingival floor on mesial side was prepared one mm above the CEJ and for group (B) one mm below the CEJ,  then each main group was subdivided into three subgroups (n=10 cavities) according to the composite placement technique: 1) bulk, 2) horizontal, 3)  oblique. The specimens were immersed in a solution of 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. The microleakage scores (0 to 3) were obtained from the cervical surface and the cervical microleakage was analyzed with a stereomicroscope.

The gingival dye penetration increased when the gingival floor was below the CEJ. The microleakage is increased with bulk followed by horizontal and oblique.

This study predicts that the oblique layering composite filling technique of class II is betters then the other techniques when the gingival floor is above and below the CEJ.

Keywords: Gingival dye microleakage, Nano-hybrid resin based composite, bulk placement techniques, incremental, placement techniques.


1.      Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:87-101.

2.      Idriss S, Abduljabbar T, Habib C, Omar R.

Factors Associated with Microleakage in Class II Resin Composite Restorations. Oper Dent. 2007;32:60-6.

3.      Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Papathanasiou A, Kastali S, García-Godoye F. Microleakage of a microhybrid composite resin using three different adhesive placement techniques. Seite 1 Montag, J Adhes Dent. 2004;6:135-9.

4.      Santhosh L, Bashetty K, Nadig G. The influence of different composite placement techniques on microleakage in preparations with high C- factor: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2008;11:112-6

5.      Hassan K. Polymerization Shrinkage Stress Reduction in Direct Occlusal Composite

Restoration Placed Using Split-increment Horizontal Technique - Case Report. Webmed Dentistry. 2010; 1: WMC00626.

6.      Bala O, Uçtasli MB, Unlü I. The leakage of Class II cavities restored with packable resin-based composites. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2003;4:1-11

7.      Yap AU.  Effectiveness of polymerization in composite restoratives claiming bulk placement: impact of cavity depth and exposure time. J Oper Dent. 2000; 25:113-20.

8.      Szep S , farank H , Kenzek B, Gerhatdt T, Heidemann D. Comparative study of composite resin placement: centripetal buildup versus incremental technique. practprocedaesthet dent. 2001; 13:243- 50.

9.      Tjan AH, Bergh BH, Linder C. Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of Class II composite resin restorations.  J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Jan; 67:62-6.

10.    Kovarik RE, Ergle JW.  Fracture toughness of posterior composite resins fabricated by incremental layering. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Jun; 69(6):557-60.

11.    Duarte S Jr, Saad JR.  Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int. 2008; 39:413-9.

12.    Van Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P, Waern R Directed polymerization shrinkage versus a horizontal incremental filling technique. Interfacial adaptation in vivo in class II cavities. Am J Dent. 1998; 11:165-172.

13.    Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bambi C, Grandini R. A Review of Polymerization Shrinkage Stress: Current Techniques for Posterior Direct Resin Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7:79-88

14.    Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogullari S. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane - based resin composite in wide class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent, 2009; 34:578-85.

15.    Yavuz I, Aydin AH. New method for measurement of surface areas of microleakage at the primary teeth by biomolecule characteristics of methylene blue. Biotechnol and BiotechnolEq 2005; 1:181-7.

16.    Pereira RA, Araujo PA, Castañeda-Espinosa JC, Mondelli RF. Comparative analysis of the shrinkage stress of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16:30-4

17.    Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Art and science of operative dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Inc.; 2006.

18.    Eakle WS, Ito RK.  Effect of insertion techniques on micro leakage in mesio-occlusodistal composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int. 1990 May; 21:369-74.

19.    BograP, Gupta S, Kumar S. Comparative

Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavities Restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study.  ContempClin Dent. 2012; 3: 9–14.

20.    Joseph A, Santhosh L, Hegde J, Panchajanya S, George R. Microleakage evaluation of Siloranebased composite and Methacrylate-based composite in class II box preparations using two different layering techniques: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2013; 24:148.

21.    Moosavi H, Zeynali M, Pour ZH. Fracture resistance of premolars restored various types and placement techniques of resin composites. Int J Dent. 2012; Volume (2012), Article ID 973641.

22.    Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Quantitative determination of stress reduction by flow in composite restorations. Dent Mater. 1990; 6:167– 71.

23.    McCullock AJ, Smith BG. In vitro studies of cuspal movement produced by adhesive restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1986; 161: 405-9.

24.    Hamza TA, Rosentiel SF, Elhosary MM, Ibrahim RM. The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:258-64.

25.    Abbas G, Fleming GJ, Harrington E, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments. J Dent, 2003:31, 437-44.

26.    Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PE. Influence of adhesive system and placement technique on microleakage of resin-based composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 6:227-32.

27.    Santhosh L, Bashetty K, Nadig G. The influence of different composite placement techniques on microleakage in preparations with high C- factor: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2008; 11:112-6.

28.    Andrian S.,Iovan G, Stoleriu S, Georgescu A, Apostolide D. Study on marginal seal assessment in posterior proximal composite resin restorations depending on the insertion method. J Romanian Medical Dentistry 2009; 13: 38-43.

29.    Ozel E, Soyman M. Effect of fiber net, application techniques and flowable composite as liner on microleakage class II MOD restoration. Oper Dent 2009; 43:174-80.

30.    Moezyzadeh M, Kazemipoor M. Effect of different placement techniques on microleakage of Class V composite restorations. J Dentistry, Tehran Univ Med Sci. 2009; 6:121-9.

31.    Nadig RR, Bugalia A, Usha G, Karthik J , Rao R , Vedhavathi B. Effect of four different placement techniques on marginal microleakage in class II composite restorations: an in vitro study.wold journal of dentstry.  2011;2:111-6.

32.    Hassan KA, Khier SE. Split-increment technique: an alternative approach for large cervical composite resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:121-8.

33.    Spreafico RC, Gagliani M. Composite resin restorations on posterior teeth.In: Roulet JF, Degrange M. Adhesion: The silent revolution in dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 2000:253-76.

        34.   Eakle WS, Ito RK.  Effect of insertion techniques on micro leakage in mesio-occlusodistal composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int. 1990; 21:369-74
Full Article - PDF