Background: Overcoming the obstacles of Class II restoration, especially the microleakage, is a polemic issue. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Aims: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was carried out in the laboratory with paired comparision between groups. Thirty Class II cavities were prepared on extracted non-carious human permanent molars, randomly divided into 3 groups, which were then restored with 3 different methods. Group 1: indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 2 indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented flowable composite (Tetric N-flow); Group 3: direct composite restoration using Tetric N-Ceram. Before immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 12 hours, all restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C). The extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using a grade scale from 0 to 3 under 40 times magnification using digital camera Nikon D7000. Results: All types of restorations showed some rate of microleakage. In comparing the three techniques, group 1 demonstrated the significantly higher rate of leakage compared to the others (p<0.05), whereas group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Different luting materials have different influences on the microleakage degree along gingival wall of Class II restoration. Key word: composite inlay, class II restoration, microleakage
Association between maxillary and mandibular apical base lengths and severity of dental crowding or spacing in Class II malocclusion subjects: An in-vitro study