The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2007 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Photoactivation Systems and Resin Composites on the Microleakage of Esthetic Restorations

Gláucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano, Larissa Maria Assad Cavalcante, Alessandra Resende Peris, André Vicente Ritter, Luiz André Freire Pimenta

Citation Information : Ambrosano GM, Cavalcante LM, Peris AR, Ritter AV, Pimenta LA. Effect of Photoactivation Systems and Resin Composites on the Microleakage of Esthetic Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (2):70-79.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-2-70

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.



The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four photoactivation systems [quartz tungsten halogen (QTH), light-emitting diode (LED), argon ion laser (AL), and plasma arc curing PAC)] on cementum/ dentin and enamel microleakage of Class II restorations using a microhybrid [Z250 – 3M ESPE] and two packable composites [(SureFil - Dentsply and Tetric Ceram HB – Ivoclair/Vivadent].

Methods and Materials

Three hundred sixty “vertical-slot Class II cavities” were prepared at the mesial surface of bovine incisors using a 245 carbide bur in a highspeed handpiece. Specimens were divided into twelve groups (composite-photoactivation systems). Half of the specimens had the gingival margin placed in enamel (n=15) and the other half in cementum/dentin (n=15). Composites were inserted and cured in 2 mm increments according to manufacturers’ recommended exposure times. After polishing, the samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned, and evaluated at the gingival margins. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.


No significant differences were found among the photoactivation systems and among resin composites (p>0.05). Microleakage was not significantly affected by location (enamel vs. cementum/dentin, p>0.05). These findings suggested neither the photoactivation systems nor the resin composite types might have an effect on the microleakage at gingival margins Class II cavities.


Cavalcante LMA, Peris AR, Ambrosano GMB, Ritter AV, Pimenta LAF. Effect of Photoactivation Systems and Resin Composites on the Microleakage of Esthetic Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:070-079.

PDF Share
  1. Determinants of in vitro gap formation of resin composites. J Dent. 2004;32(2):109-115.
  2. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J. Dent Res. 1984;63(12):1396-1399.
  3. The effects of thermal and occlusal stresses on the microleakage of the Scotchbond 2 dentinal bonding system. Dent Mater. 1991;7(1):63-67.
  4. Influence of different light sources on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(5):500-504.
  5. Microleakage: a review J Dent. 1976;4(5):199-206.
  6. Marginal integrity and post operative sensitivity in class II resin composite restoration in vivo. J Dent. 1998;26(7):555-562.
  7. Light-curing - an update. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2002;23(10):889-896.
  8. Microleakage. J Dent. 1992;20(1):3-10.
  9. Microleakage around dental restorations: a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc. 1972;84(6):1349-1357.
  10. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent. 1997;22(4):173-185.
  11. Permeability of biological and synthetic molecules through dentine. J Oral Rehabil. 1994;21(4):475-487.
  12. Sealing ability of new generation adhesive-restorative materials placed on vital teeth. Am J Dent. 2002;15(2):117-128.
  13. Effect of composite type, light intensity, configuration factor and laser polymerization on polymerization contraction forces. Am J Dent. 1997;10(2):88-96.
  14. Light intensity effects on resin composite degree of conversion and shrinkage strain Dent Mater. 2000;16(4):292-296.
  15. Reduced light energy density decreases post-gel contraction while maintaining degree of conversion in composites. J Dent. 1998;26(8):695-700.
  16. A light curing method for improving marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2001;17(4):359-366.
  17. Influence of curing methods and materials on the marginal seal of class V composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent. 2003;28(2):160-167.
  18. Depth of cure and marginal adaptation to dentin of xenon lamp polymerized resin composites. Oper Dent. 2001;26(6):585-590.
  19. Photopolymerization of resin composite using argon laser. J Can Dent Assoc. 1999;65(8):447-450.
  20. Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations. J Dent. 2004;32(5):407-412.
  21. Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in Class V cavities. Am J Dent. 2003;16(4):239-243.
  22. Polymerization shrinkage of resin composites using plasma-arc photocuring. Gen Dent. 2001;49(5):473-479.
  23. Polymerization shrinkage of restorative resins using laser and visible light curing. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1997;15(3):137-141.
  24. True linear polymerization shrinkage of unfilled resins and composites determined with a linometer. Dent Mater. 1993;9(1):11-14.
  25. A recording dilatometer for measuring polymerization shrinkage. Dent Mater. 1986;2(2):78-79.
  26. Microhardness of resin composite polymerized by plasma arc or conventional visible light curing. Oper Dent. 2002; 27(1):30-37.
  27. The effect of light-curing modes on the microleakage of cervical resin composite restorations. J Dent. 2004;32(3):247-254.
  28. Microleakage and gap formation of resin composite restorations polymerized with different techniques. Am J Dent. 2004;17(3):156-160.
  29. Resin polymerization problems – are they caused by resin curing lights, resin formulations, or both? Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl. 1999;25:S42-54; quiz S74.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.