Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Cavities restored with the Embrace WetBond Class V Composite Resin and Conventional Opallis Composite Resin.

PURPOSE This study was undertaken to compare the micro-leakage of class V cavities restored with the newly introduced Embrace WetBond class V (EWC) composite resin and conventional Opallis composite resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on 30 extracted bovine incisors, with the gingival floor and the coronal margin of the cavities 1 mm apical and coronal to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) respectively. The cavities measured 3 mm in length, 2 mm in width, and 1.5 mm in depth. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, the cavities were restored with Opallis composite resin in association with ExciTE adhesive system (total-etch); in group II, the EWC composite resin was used for restorations. After 500 thermocycling procedures, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% fuchsin solution for 24 hours. Then, the samples were placed within a polyester model and sectioned in the buccolingual direction. The samples were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at ×30 for the penetration of dye. The enamel and dentin margins were evaluated separately. To test ordinal results, we used nonparametric statistical methods. To find out whether each independent composite groups I and II came from the same populations, we used Mann-Whitney U test and to compare two related samples' coronal margin and gingival margin, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. RESULTS There was significantly more microleakage in group II at both the enamel and dentin margins (coronal margin: p = 0.04; gingival margin: p = 0.21). In both groups, microleakage at gingival margins was significantly higher than that at coronal margins (group I: p = 0.008; group II: p = 0.26). CONCLUSION Despite the high speed and the short process of restoration with Embrace WetBond, it is not a reliable restorative material for class V cavities due to its inadequate marginal seal.