Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies

AbstractObjectives rpose of the present study was to comparatively evaluate the effect of flowable composite resin liner and resin modified glass ionomer liner on gingival marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored using three bonding agents (Single Bond 3M ESPE, One Coat Self Etching Bond Coltene Whaledent; Adper Easy Bond Self-Etch Adhesive 3M ESPE) and respective composite resins, under cyclic loading. The marginal adaptation was evaluated in terms of ‘continuous margin’ (CM) at the gingival margin. als and methods class II cavities with margins extending 1 mm below the cement–enamel junction were prepared in extracted mandibular third molars. The samples were divided into three groups: no liner placement; 0.5–1 mm thick flowable resin liner placement (Filtek Z350 XT flowable resin) on gingival floor and; light cure glass ionomer (Ketac N100) liner. The groups were further subdivided into three sub-groups on the basis of the bonding agents used. Cavities were restored with composite resins (Z350 for Single Bond and Adper Easy Bond; and Synergy D6 Universal, for One Coat Self Etching Bond) in 2 mm increments and the samples were mechanically loaded (60 N, 1,50,000 cycles). Marginal adaptation was evaluated using a low vacuum scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was done with two way ANOVA with Holm–Sidakʹs correction for multiple comparisons. s ent of flowable composite liner significantly improved the CM values of Single Bond (78 ± 11%) and One Coat Self Etching Bond (77 ± 9%) compared with no liner group, but the values of CM of Adper Easy Bond were not improved (61 ± 12%). Placement of glass ionomer liner significantly improved the values of CM in all the sub-groups (78 ± 9%, 72 ± 10% and 77 ± 10% for Single Bond, One Coat Self Etching Bond & Adper Easy Bond respectively) compared with no liner group. sions ent of liners improved the values of ‘continuous margin’ in the gingival floor of the proximal cavities restored with composite resins using different bonding agent. al relevance ent of flowable composite liner or glass ionomer liner will improve the marginal integrity of composite restorations using etch-and-rinse and two bottle-two step self etch adhesives. To improve the marginal integrity of a single bottle adhesive, glass ionomer liner should be applied.