Gingival Microleakage of Dental Amalgam, Bulk Fill Composite Resin and Alkasite Based Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities

ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate and compare gingival microleakage in class II cavities restored with amalgam, bulk-fill composite, and the new alkasite based dental composite (Cention-N).
Materials and Methods: Two independant Class II cavities were prepared in forty extracted human third molars. Each molar had a mesial cavity with gingival margin located 1 mm occlusal to the cemento-enamel junction (supra CEJ) and a distal cavity with gingival margin located 1 mm apical to the CEJ (sub CEJ). The prepared molars were randomly assigned to four groups(n=10) according to the restorative material used. Group 1; was restored with dental amalgam. Group 2; was restored with bulk fill dental composite. Group 3; was restored with alkasite based composite without bonding agent. Group 4; was restored with alkasite based composite with bonding agent. The teeth were then thermocycled and immersed in methylene blue solution for 24h. The teeth were mesiodistally sectioned and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at×10 magnification. Dye penetration scorings were recorded, and data were analyzed Kruskal Wallis followed by post-hoc Dunn’s test.
Results: Dental amalgam showed the least microleakage and came to be better than the Cention-N and bulkfill dental composite. Microleakage for Cention-N without bonding agent was the highest of all. In terms of supra CEJ and sub CEJ microleakage; the difference for group 1and 3 was nonsignificant but was significant for group 2 and 4.
Conclusions: Alkasite based dental composite with bonding agent in class II restorations are not significantly different from Bulk fill composites in terms of microleakage