Microleakage evaluation of Silorane-based composite and methacrylate-based composite in class II box preparations using two different layering techniques: an in vitro study.

Research paper by Asha A Joseph, Lekha L Santhosh, Jayshree J Hegde, Srinivas S Panchajanya, Reshmi R George

Indexed on: 16 Jul '13Published on: 16 Jul '13Published in: Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research


The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in Class II box preparations with the gingival margin above and below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) restored with Silorane composite and methacrylate composite using two different layering techniques.Standardized box preparations (mesial box 1 mm above the CEJ and distal box 1 mm below the CEJ) were prepared in 60 upper premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups containing 15 samples each; Group I: Restored with a Silorane composite using an oblique layering technique, Group II: Restored with Silorane composite using a vertical layering technique, Group III: Restored with methacrylate composite using the oblique layering technique, and Group IV: Restored with methacrylate composite using the vertical layering technique. The samples were stored in distilled water, followed by thermocycling and immersed in 2% methylene blue. The samples were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage at the gingival margin.Kruskal-Wallis, Fischer exact test, Wilicoxon test, and Mann-Whitney U test.Silorane composite had significantly lesser microleakage. No significant difference in microleakage was observed above and below the CEJ for Silorane-based composite.Silorane composite resin showed lesser microleakage compared to methacrylate composite resin.The Silorane-based composites improve the marginal adaptation due to their reduced shrinkage, thereby decreasing the residual stress at the adhesive-tooth interface.