Article Type

Original Article




Objective: To compare the effect of the cavity design and the location of the gingival wall, onenamel and cementum on the microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations in primary molars. Materialsand Methods: Class V cavity was made on the buccal surface of sixty sound primary mandibular second molar inthis study. The teeth were divided into two main groups: Group A (Kidney shaped cavity) and Group B (Rectangleshaped cavity). Each group was also subdivided into two subgroups, Subgroup A1; Kidney shape with gingivalmargin on enamel, Subgroup A2; Kidney shape with gingival margin on cementum, Subgroup B1; Rectangle shapewith gingival margin on enamel and Subgroup B2; Rectangle shape with gingival margin on cementum. Afterrestoring all cavities with 3M™ Single Bond Universal Adhesive and Filtek™ Z250 XT (3M ESPE) composite, adye penetration test was performed to evaluate the microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins. Results:Regarding the cavity design, a significant difference was found between the rectangle-shaped cavity design(1.1±1.09) and the kidney design (0.733±0.94). Regarding the location of the gingival margin, there was a staticallysignificant difference between margins below the Cemento-enamel junction (2.30±0.98) and those above(1.20±1.13). Conclusions: Lowering the surface area of the cavity, as in the Kidney shape, helps greatly inminimizing the microleakage of composite restorations. Moreover, keeping the cervical margin in enamel aspossible aids in the reduction of microleakage and saving the marginal integrity.