Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of four flowable resins to decrease the marginal microleakage on the enamel and cementum margins.

Methods: Twenty five freshly-extracted human molars were used in this study. Each one received two standardized class II composite preparations, one on the mesial and another on the distal face, both with the cervical margins in cementum. The teeth were divided in five groups of five teeth each and the restored in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The resins were Gr 1.Tetric Ceram (VIVADENT) as control; Gr.2 Tetric Flow (VIVADENT); Gr.3 Natural Flow (DFL); Gr.4 Magic Flow (VIGODENT) and Gr.5 Flow It (JENERIC/ PENTON). After the restoration the teeth were submitted to 4,000 150-Newton-occlusal load cycles, one cycle per second, died with 50% silver nitrate for 24 hours, rinsed with water, embedded in epoxy resin, sectioned and the microleakage scored from 0 (lower) to 3 (higher) by 2 independent examiners.

Results: The group mean ranks of the microleakage were Gr.1 – 78; Gr.2 – 65; Gr. 3 – 96; Gr.4 – 116; Gr.5 - 106. The region mean ranks were: Enamel - 66 and Cementum - 121. The data were analyzed by ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests. Groups 2 and control showed the same marginal microleakage degree. Groups 3, 4 and 5 showed more microleakage then the control Group. Enamel showed less microleakage than the cementum.

Conclusions: The performance of the materials in enamel was better than in cementum. It was showed that Tetric Flow and Tetric Ceram were similar, concerning microleakage. Natural Flow, Magic Flow and Flow It did not controlled the microleakage as well as the control resin.

Back to the Dental Materials: II - Adhesion-Other Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search