This study investigated the effect on microleakage of different bonding agents and glass and polyethylene fibers inserted at gingival margins of class V composite restorations. Sixty premolars were sterilized. Class V cavities were prepared, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Prepared tooth were randomly divided into 12 groups (n=10). In experimental groups fiber inserts were inserted at the gingival seat. The control groups had no inserts. Restorations were incrementally placed and polymerized. Specimens were then stored in water and thermocycled for 500 cycles, then immersed in 2% procion dye and sectioned buccolingually, then dye penetration was assessed. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and analysis of variance of ranks. No significant differences were found among the types of fiber or the two types of composites. Significant differences were found between the bonding agents. SE and LS show significantly lower microleakage than NT in class V composite restorations in dentin.

This study investigated the effect on microleakage of different bonding agents and glass and polyethylene fibers inserted at gingival margins of class V composite restorations. Sixty premolars were sterilized. Class V cavities were prepared, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Prepared tooth were randomly divided into 12 groups (n=10). In experimental groups fiber inserts were inserted at the gingival seat. The control groups had no inserts. Restorations were incrementally placed and polymerized. Specimens were then stored in water and thermocycled for 500 cycles, then immersed in 2% procion dye and sectioned buccolingually, then dye penetration was assessed. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and analysis of variance of ranks. No significant differences were found among the types of fiber or the two types of composites. Significant differences were found between the bonding agents. SE and LS show significantly lower microleakage than NT in class V composite restorations in dentin.