The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2013 ) > List of Articles


Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

Walaa Ahmed, Wafa El-Badrawy, Gajanan Kulkarni, Anuradha Prakki, Omar El-Mowafy

Citation Information : Ahmed W, El-Badrawy W, Kulkarni G, Prakki A, El-Mowafy O. Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (4):622-628.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1375

Published Online: 01-12-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; The Author(s).



This study investigated the effect of different fiber inserts (glass and polyethylene), bonding agents, and resin composites on the gingival margin microleakage of class V composite restorations.

Materials and methods

Sixty premolars were sterilized and mounted in acrylic resin bases. Class V cavities were prepared buccally and lingually, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction, comprising 12 groups (n = 10). In the experimental groups fiber inserts were cut and placed at the gingival seat, while the control groups had no inserts. Combinations of two composite materials, Filtek-Z250 and Filtek-LS (3M-ESPE), and four bonding agents, Clearfil SE bond (Kuraray) (C), Scotch Bond Multipurpose (3M-ESPE) (SB), Prime and Bond NT (Dentsply) (PB), and Filtek-LS (3M-ESPE) (LS) were used. Restorations were incrementally inserted and polymerized for 40s. Specimens were then stored in distilled water for 7 days and thermocycled for 500 cycles. Teeth surfaces were sealed with nail polish except for 1 mm around restoration margins and immersed in 2% red procion dye. Teeth were then sectioned buccolingually and dye penetration was assessed with five-point scale. Data were statistically-analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 5%).


Mean microleakage scores varied from 0.40 (Groups C, C with polyethylene, LS, LS with polyethylene) to 1.50 (SB).


Different bonding agents led to differences in microleakage scores where C and LS showed significantly lower microleakage than PB. SB had highest mean microleakage score, however, incorporation of fibers resulted in significant reduction in microleakage.

Clinical significance

Class V resin composite restorations bonded with a total-etch adhesive had a significant reduction in mean microleakage scores when glass or polyethylene fibers were placed at the gingival cavo-surface margin. In contrast, for two self-etch adhesive systems, the incorporation of fibers had no significant effect on mean microleakage scores.

How to cite this article

Ahmed W, El-Badrawy W, Kulkarni G, Prakki A, El-Mowafy O. Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(4):622-628.

PDF Share
  1. Efficacy of composite restorative techniques in marginal sealing of extended class V cavities. ISRN Dentistry 2011.
  2. Microleakage of class V composite restorations with different bonding systems on fluorosed teeth. Eur J Dent 2008;2:48-58.
  3. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V preparations restored with hybrid versus silorane composites. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:103-107.
  4. Effect of bonding systems on postoperative sensitivity from posterior composites. Am J Dent 2006;19:151-154.
  5. Gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent 2007;32:298-305.
  6. Influence of additives on the properties of Bis-GMA/Bis-GMA analog comonomers and corresponding copolymers. Dent Mater 2007;23:1199-1204.
  7. Exploring beyond methacrylates. Am J Dent 13:82D-84D.
  8. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68-74.
  9. Macro, micro and nano-mechanical investigations on silorane and methacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater 2009;25:810-819.
  10. Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications a literature review. Schweizer Monatsschrift Für Zahnmedizin. 2010;120:972-986.
  11. Continuous-fiber preform reinforcement of dental resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 2003;19:523-530.
  12. Effect of sterilization by gamma radiation on nanomechanical properties of teeth. Dent Mater 2008;24:1137-1140.
  13. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prost Dent 2003;90:168-174.
  14. Effect of gamma radiation on dentin bond strength and morphology. Braz Dent J 2001 12:205-208.
  15. Sterilization of teeth by gamma radiation. J Dent Res 1994;73:1560-1567.
  16. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 199722:173-185.
  17. Evaluation of gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:166-169.
  18. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66:1636-1639.
  19. In vitro examination of the fracture strength of three different fiberreinforced composite and all ceramic posterior inlay fixed partial denture systems. J Prosthod 2002;11:248-253.
  20. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: incremental or bulk filling? Dent Mat 2008;24:1501-1505.
  21. Microleakage and interfacial morphology of self-etching adhesives in class V resin composite restorations. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003;66:399-409.
  22. Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in class V composite restorations. Am J Dent 2001;14:31-33.
  23. Comparative SEM and TEM observations of nanoleakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent 1995;20:160-167.
  24. Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res 2008;87:974-979.
  25. New developments in dental adhesion. Dental Clin North Am 2007;51:333-357.
  26. Effect of reacted acidic monomer with calcium on bonding performance. J Dent Res 2011;90:607-612.
  27. Dentin-polymer promoted by Gluma and various resin. J Dent Res 1985;64:1409-1411.
  28. Dentin bonding agent: correlation of early bond strength with margin gaps. Dent Mat 1986;2:257-262.
  29. Relationship between bond strength tests and other in vitro phenomena. Dent Mat 2010;26:e94–e99.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.