Effect of photoactivation systems and resin composites on the microleakage of esthetic restorations
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Detection and Removal of Tooth-Colored Composite Resin Using the Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique
Published on: July 27, 2022
Larissa Maria Assad Cavalcante1, Alessandra Resende Peris, Glaucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano
1Clinical Dentistry Program, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Unviersity of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. lacavalcante@fop.unicamp.br
Aim:
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.
Results:
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.
