COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS USING BULK-FILL AND CONVENTIONAL COMPOSITE RESINS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Restorative dentistry, Microleakage, Class II Restorations Using Bulk-Fill, Conventional Composite Resins
Abstract
Objective: To comparatively evaluate microleakage in Class II restorations restored using bulk-fill composite resin and conventional incremental composite resin.
Materials and Methods: An in-vitro experimental study was conducted on extracted human premolars. Standardized Class II cavities were prepared and restored using either a conventional incremental composite resin or a bulk-fill composite resin. Following restoration and thermocycling, microleakage was assessed using dye penetration and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed to compare microleakage between the groups.
Results: Both restorative techniques showed microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins. Gingival margins demonstrated higher microleakage in both groups. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between bulk-fill and conventional composite resins. Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite resins demonstrated microleakage comparable to conventional composite resins in Class II restorations and may be considered a reliable alternative with reduced operative time.
References
2. Mosharrafian S, Farahmand N, Poorzandpoush K, Hosseinipour ZS, Kahforushan M. In vitro microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins of class II cavities of primary molars restored with a bulk‐fill and a conventional composite. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2023 Jun;9(3):512-7.
3. Jacob G, Goud KM. A comparative study on microleakage of two low shrinkage composite materials in class II cavities: A stereomicroscopic analysis. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2023 Jan 1;26(1):83-7.
4. Ibrahim MS, AlKhalefah AS, Alsaghirat AA, Alburayh RA, Alabdullah NA. Comparison between different bulk-fill and incremental composite materials used for class II restorations in primary and permanent teeth: in vitro assessments. Materials. 2023 Oct 13;16(20):6674.
5. Dietschi D, Askari M, Rossier I, Caseiro L, Krejci I, Leprince JG, Di Bella E, Ardu S. Marginal adaptation of in vitro class II restorations made out of bulk or conventional composite using single-or multi-layered techniques. Materials. 2023 Sep 21;16(18):6325.
6. Momin Z, Maria R. To Compare and Evaluate the Microleakage of Four Different Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials in Class V Cavities: A Stereomicroscopic Study. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ISSN: 2581-4893). 2023 Feb;7(2).
7. Shishodia R, Goyal V, Shaikh A, Mahule A, Dondani J. A comparative evaluation of gingival microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restoration with two different lining techniques: An: in vitro: study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2022 Jan 1;40(1):67-73.
8. Martínez-Sabio L, Peñate L, Arregui M, Veloso Duran A, Blanco JR, Guinot F. Comparison of shear bond strength and microleakage between activa™ bioactive restorative™ and bulk-fill composites—An in vitro study. Polymers. 2023 Jun 27;15(13):2840.
9. Mundaragi VA, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, Rao DG, Patil TN, Chavan SC. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024 Oct;17(10):1146.
10. Ghosh A, Desai PD, Maity I, Mazumdar P. Assessment of cuspal deflection and microleakage in Class II composite restorations: Comparative analysis between nanocomposite and bulk-fill composite resin. Journal of Oral Research and Review. 2025 Jul 1;17(2):107-12.
11. Hassan AA, Sindi AS, Atout AM, Morsy MS, Mattoo KA, Obulareddy VT, Mathur A, Mehta V. Assessment of microhardness of bulk-fill class II resin composite restorations performed by preclinical students: An in vitro study. European Journal of General Dentistry. 2024 May;13(02):158-64.
12. Abuzenada BM. Analysis of Microleakage in Different Composite Resin Systems. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science. 2025 Feb 11:95-8.
13. Shihabi S, AL-Monaquel MB. Marginal Microleakage Evaluation in Class II Cavities Restored With Composite, Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer, and Bulk-Fill Bioactive Composite: An In Vitro Study. Avicenna Journal of Dental Research. 2025 Jun 30;17(2):101-8.
14. Ellithy MS, Abdelrahman MH, Afifi RR. Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2024 Sep;36(9):1311-25.
15. Ahirwal S, Shetty V, Pillai J, Gautam G, Goswami K, Chudasama K, Sachdev SS. Comparative evaluation of cervical microleakage in class II composite restorations using different liner and placement techniques: An in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2025 Dec 1;28(12):1272-8.
16. Canik G, Ulusoy N, Orhan K. Evaluation of Microvoid and Microleakage Potential of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites in MOD Restorations. Coatings. 2024 Mar 11;14(3):329.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Mehwish Sabir
M. Phil Resident, Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Ghulam Ishaq
Assistant Professor Operative Dentistry, Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan, Pakistan
Fatima Saadat
Demonstrator Oral Medicine, Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College, Lahore, Pakistan
Sajjad Ali Darvesh
Associate Professor and Head of Operative and Endodontics Department, Shahidah Islam Medical and Dental College, Lodhran, Pakistan
Ayesha Zafar
Assistant Professor Operative Dentistry, Bahria University Dental College and Hospital, Pakistan
Jai Lalita
Lecturer in Operative Dentistry Department, At Hamdard University Dental Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
