Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 840
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

Table of Contents   
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 344-348
Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission10-Feb-2014
Date of Decision26-Apr-2014
Date of Acceptance14-May-2014
Date of Web Publication10-Jul-2014


Background: Evaluation of microleakage is important for assessing the success of new restorative materials and methods.
Aim and Objectives: Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials.
Materials and Methods: Standardized mesi-occlusal (MO) and distoocclusal (DO) Class II tooth preparations were preparedon 53 molars and samples were randomly divided into six experimental groups and one control group for restorations. Group 1: Open-Sandwich technique (OST) with flowable composite at the gingival seat. Group 2: OST with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) at the gingival seat. Group 3: Closed-Sandwich technique (CST) with flowable composite at the pulpal floor and axial wall. Group 4: CST with RMGIC at the pulpal floor and axial wall. Group 5: OST with flowable composite at the pulpal floor, axial wall, and gingival seat. Group 6: OST with RMGIC at the pulpal floor, axial wall, and gingival seat. Group 7: Control - no lining material, centripetal technique only. After restorations and thermocycling, apices were sealed and samples were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye. Sectioning was followed by stereomicroscopic evaluation.
Results: Results were analyzed using Post Hoc Bonferroni test (statistics is not a form of tabulation). Cervical scores of control were more than the exprimental groups (P < 0.05). Less microleakage was observed in CST than OST in all experimental groups (P < 0.05). However, insignificant differences were observed among occlusal scores of different groups (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Class II composite restorations with centripetal build-up alone or when placed with CST reduces the cervical microleakage when compared to OST.

Keywords: Centripetal build-up technique; closed-sandwich technique; microleakage; open-sandwich technique

How to cite this article:
Sawani S, Arora V, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:344-8

How to cite this URL:
Sawani S, Arora V, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 31];17:344-8. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Restoring the peripheral seal especially in deep Class II tooth preparations with the gingival margin extending on to the root still remains a critical goal for adhesive dentistry. [1] This peripheral seal is disturbed by the contraction stresses generated in composite resins due to polymerization shrinkage. [2],[3] When a tooth preparation extends onto the root surface (non-enamel surfaces), chances of gap formation at the junction of the composite and root surface further increases. [2] This V-shaped gap occurs because the force of polymerization of the composite is greater than the initial bond strength of the composite to the dentin of the root. [2]

Various techniques and materials have been advocated for prevention of marginal gaps in this critical portion such as the use of centripetal build-up technique for incremental additions, compomers, low shrinkage composite [4] or use of stress breaking liners referred to as sandwich technique. The sandwich technique is a layering of materials to create the optimal combination of desirable properties in a restoration. The two variations of this type of restoration exist - open and closed sandwich techniques. [1]

McLean and Wilson [5] first described the open-sandwich technique (OST) in 1977, where glass-ionomer cement (GIC) was left exposed at the cervical margin to allow release of fluoride to protect the surrounding tooth structure. In the closed sandwich technique, the GIC is applied to a cavity where complete enamel margins are available for bonding and sealing using the phosphoric acid etch technique. The GIC would be placed to cover the dentin prior to the etching and bonding step. [6] Later on, the use of other materials with this technique like resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite were also advocated. [7]

To improve the interfacial seal in posterior composite restorations, centripetal build-up technique had been proposed by Hassan K et al., (1987) [8] and later on advocated by Bichacho N (1994). [9] This technique replaces lost tooth structure from the periphery towards the center of the cavity by placement of a thin proximal layer towards the matrix band which is cured first, thereby achieving better marginal adaptation to the cervical margin and decreasing the overall volume/area ratio. This technique can also be combined with sandwich techniques using different materials e.g.; flowable composite, RMGIC, compomer etc. [9]

A combination of these techniques can improve the interfacial seal, especially in preparations with cervical portion extending onto the root portion thus, decrease microleakage at these areas.

Hence, the present in vitro study was undertaken to evaluate the microleakage in Class II restorations which were restored with open and closed centripetal build-up technique utilizing different lining materials.

   Materials and methods Top

Selection of teeth

Fifty three non-carious, freshly extracted human mandibular molar teeth of approximately similar dimensions were selected and stored in 1% chloramine-T solution (Hi-media Labs., India) until use. Standardized Class II tooth preparations were prepared on mesial and distal sides of all teeth except one in which no preparation was done on distal side. The dimensions of occlusal box preparation were pulpal depth of 3 mm, bucco-lingual width of 3 mm, and mesio-distal width of 4 mm. In proximal box, bucco-lingual and gingival seat width was 3 mm. Cervical margin of proximal box was placed 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).

A minimum of 2 mm tooth tissue remained between the two preparations in each tooth. Mounting of teeth were done in metallic jigs and Palodent Sectional Matrix System (Denstply, Switzerland) with wooden wedges were applied before the restorative procedures.

Division of groups

The prepared teeth were randomly divided into seven groups on the basis of restorative technique used.

Group 1: (n = 15): Open-sandwich centripetal technique mesio-occlusal (MO with 1 mm flowable composite (Filtek 350 XT flow, 3M/ESPE, USA) at gingival seat of proximal box.

Group 2: (n = 15): Open-sandwich centripetal technique disto-occlusal (DO with 1 mm RMGIC (Vitrebond, 3M/ESPE, USA) at gingival seat of proximal box.

Group 3: (n = 15): Closed-sandwich centripetal technique MO with 1 mm flowable composite (Filtek 350 XT flow, 3M/ESPE, USA) at pulpal floor and axial wall.

Group 4: (n = 15): Closed-sandwich centripetal technique DO with 1 mm RMGIC (Vitrebond, 3M/ESPE, USA) at pulpal floor and axial wall.

Group 5: (n = 15): Open-sandwich centripetal technique MO with 1 mm flowable composite (Filtek 350 XT flow, 3M/ESPE, USA) at pulpal floor, axial wall and gingival seat.

Group 6: (n = 15): Open-sandwich centripetal technique DO with 1 mm RMGIC (Vitrebond, 3M/ESPE, USA) at pulpal floor, axial wall and gingival seat.

Group 7: (n = 15): Centripetal technique MO and DO without any lining material.

After the placement of liners, etching was done by application of 37% phosphoric acid gel (Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M/ESPE, USA) for 15 seconds. It was rinsed with water for 10 seconds. After removal of excess water with moist cotton pellet, bonding agent (Adper Single Bond 2 Adhesive, 3M/ESPE, USA) was applied as per manufacturer's directions and light cured for 10 seconds with (light-emitting diode, LED) light curing unit (Unicorn Denmart, India). Placement of nano composite (Filtek 350 XT restorative material, 3M/ESPE, USA) was done in circumferential manner along the band, causing resin to climb upwards strictly in contact with the inner surface of matrix band making space for horizontal increments.

Custom-made metallic instrument was used to standardize the technique for centripetal build-up. It was placed in contact with axial wall to standardize the space for centripetal build-up. The increment was then adapted and light cured for 40 seconds. Horizontal increments (1mm thick) were placed to fill the remaining preparation and light cured for 40 seconds. Further, finishing and polishing of occlusal and proximal surfaces were done with sof-lex discs and strips (3M/ESPE, USA) in sequential manner as per manufacturer instructions.

Dye penetration test

The samples were subjected to thermocycling in customized thermocycling device which worked at 500 cycles at 5°C, 37°C, and 55°C, with a dwell time of 30 seconds and transfer time of 15 seconds. The apices were then sealed with modelling wax and two coats of nail polish were applied to coat the foramina and the entire sample surface except for the restoration and 1 mm area beyond the margins. Further, the samples were soaked in freshly prepared 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours after which they were thoroughly rinsed under tap water. The samples were then sectioned in mesio-distal direction from center of the restorations with diamond coated disc mounted in straight handpiece (NSK, Eschborn, Germany) under constant water flow. The sectioned teeth were observed under stereomicroscope (Carl Zeiss, Italy) at 12× magnification and evaluated using the ISO microleakage scoring system (ISO/TS 11405:2003).

The scoring criterion for occlusal microleakage scores was as follows:

  • 0 = No dye penetration
  • 1 = Dye penetration into enamel
  • 2 = Dye penetration into the dentin, not including the pulpal wall/gingival floor
  • 3 = Dye penetration into the dentin including the pulpal wall

The cervical microleakage scoring criterion was:

  • 0 = No dye penetration
  • 1 = Dye penetration into ½ of the cervical wall
  • 2 = Dye penetration into all the cervical wall
  • 3 = Dye penetration into cervical and axial wall

The degree of dye penetration was independently scored by two examiners who were blind to the procedure. In case of disagreement between their evaluations, the worst score was considered. The results were analyzed using Post Hoc Bonferroni test, inferential type of statistics, software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0.

   Results Top

On analysis of occlusal scores statistically insignificant differences were observed among the groups [Table 1] (P > 0.05). On analyzing cervical scores [Table 2], it was found that the control group (Group 7) without any lining material presented with the least microleakage scores (P < 0.05) followed by the Group 4 < Group 3 < Group 1 < Group 5 < Group 6 < Group 2. Among experimental groups, microleakage scores for CST at cervical margin were significantly less than OST (P < 0.05).
Table 1: Microleakage at occlusal level

Click here to view
Table 2: Microleakage at cervical level

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

In the present study on comparison of placement techniques, it was found that microleakage scores were lower at the occlusal margins than cervical margins in all the groups [Table 3]. This could be attributed due to higher inorganic content in enamel which accounts for greater microporosities formation by acid etched, leading to better penetration of adhesive system, and forming a strong micromechanical bond with composite resin. [10],[11]

Groups 1, 2, 5, and 6, in which OST was used along with centripetal build-up technique presented with higher microleakage scores. There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between Groups 3 and 4 indicating that both RMGIC and flowable composite were equally effective in preventing microleakage in CST
Table 3: Group comparison of groups for microleakage at cervical level using Post Hoc Bonferroni test

Click here to view

Regarding the low scores in control group (Group 7) and CST (Groups 3 and 4), the most important reason attributed is reduced volume/area ratio. A thin proximal layer placed towards the matrix band is cured before adjacent composite increments are applied into the cavity, which thereby reduces the volume/area ratio compared to the situation when the whole margin area is first filled with an increment. Bichacho N and Szep S et al., in their studies concluded that fewer contraction gaps at the margins can be expected using centripetal build-up method. [9],[12],[13] Also, the first layer of the centripetal build-up technique had no contact to the pulpo-axial walls and thus, had less tendency to contract towards this wall and be shifted away from gingival seat during polymerization.

No significant difference was seen between Groups (1 and 5), (1 and 6), (2 and 5), and (2 and 6) (P > 0.05) indicating that extent of lining material has no effect on microleakage scores. The possible reasons for such results could be the weaker bonds between dentin and RMGIC in gingival margin due to the surface not being conditioned prior to RMGIC placement. [14] Secondly, the presence of smear layer must have prevented proper hybridization in this area. McLean JW and Bona AD et. al., have stressed on the application of dentin bonding agents before RMGIC placement for better bonding. [5],[15],[16] Also, it has been seen that etching Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) before placement of subsequent layer of composite resin leads to deterioration of the GIC matrix. [16],[17]

Some researchers state that, RMGIC bonds get distrupted with dentin, mainly in the initial stages of GIC maturation due to contraction forces which occur within polymerizing composite resin. So, the polymerization stress leads to pulling away of RMGIC from dentin and cementum during polymerization of composite resin layer. [10],[18],[19],[20]

In the OST (Groups 1 and 2), there was statistically significant difference with different groups (P < 0.05), with more microleakage in Group 2. Flowable composite performed slightly better as compared to RMGIC. Whereas, in Groups 5 and 6, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the use of different lining material to prevent microleakage.

Slightly better results were obtained with nanofilled flowable composites as compared to RMGIC. Flowable composite was placed after conditioning of the gingival seat and it shares the same matrix as the composite (Filtek Z350 XT) which is used as the next increment, thus causing no alteration of matrix. Few authors who support the use of flowable liners in gingival seat of Class II preparation state that these have modulus of elasticity comparable to dentin, making it act like a stress breaker. [13],[21]

According to Scholte K and Davidson, [22] the low viscosity resin provides a cross-partial connection with dimethylacrylate present in the restorative material. This connection allows the movement of molecule groups during the initial polymerization which results in a better resin flow and a consequent reduction in the polymerization shrinkage. [13]

Also, the particle size and the viscosity of RMGIC is more as compared to flowable composite and since it is a two component system (powder and liquid) there are more chances for porosities and the microscopic fracture of the material extending from porosity to porosity in the material, leading to increased microleakage.

Within limitations of this study, it can be concluded that none of the placement techniques employed were able to completely eliminate microleakage. Cervical margins showed more microleakage than occlusal. Use of liners in OST and CST on occlusal microleakage scores was found ineffective. Flowable composite used in open sandwich centripetal build-up performed slightly better in terms of reduction in microleakage when compared to RMGIC cement. CST and centripetal build-up alone showed significantly lesser cervical microleakage when compared to open sandwich centripetal build-up technique. Centripetal build-up alone showed significantly less cervical microleakage when compared to all other techniques.

   References Top

1.Brunton PA, Kassir A, Dashti M, Setcos JC. Effect of different application and polymerization techniques on the microleakage of proximal resin composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2004;29:54-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Theodore MR, Harald OH, Edward JS. Sturdevant's Art & Science of Operative Dentistry. 4 th edition, Mosby 2002.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Basavanna R, Garg A, Kapur R. Evaluation of gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:166-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
4.Nanjundasetty JK, Nanda S, Panuganti V, Marigowda JC. Marginal sealing ability of silorane and methyacrylate resin composites in class II cavities: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:503-8.   Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
5.McLean JW, Wilson AD. The clinical development of the glass-ionomer cement II: Some clinical applications. Aust Dent J 1977;22:120-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Fabianelli A, Sgarra A, Gorraci A, Pollington S, Ferrari M. Microleakage in class II restorations: Open vs closed centripetal build up technique. Oper Dent 2010;35:308-13.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.Simi B, Suprabha B. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:178-81.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
8.Hassan K, Mante F, List G, Dhuru V. A modified incremental filling technique for Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:153-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
9.Bichacho N. The centripetal build-up for composite resin posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1994;6:17-23.  Back to cited text no. 9
10.Nadig R, Bugalla A, Usha G, Karthik J, Rao R, Vedhavathi B. Effect of four different placement techniques on marginal microleakage in Class II composite restorations: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2011;2:111-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
11.Jones G. Marginal microleakage associated with three posterior resin restorative material. J Dent 1988;16:130-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
12.Szep S, Frank H, Kenzel B, Gerhardt T, Heidemann D. Comparative study of composite resin placement: Centripetal buildup versus incremental technique. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13:243-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
13.Peris AR, Duarte S Jr, de Andrade MF. Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: Effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins. Quintessence Int 2003;34:93-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
14.Raju RK, Vishwanath BT, Shivanna V. Comparative microleakage evaluation of a flowable comparative versus an injuctable glass ionomer cement in class II slot penetrations: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2003;6:65-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
15.Mount GJ. Esthetics with glass-ionomer cements and the "sandwich" technique. Quintessence Int 1990;21:93-101.  Back to cited text no. 15
16.Bona AD, Pinzetta C, Rosa V. effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:230-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
17.Charlton DG, Moore BK, Swartz ML. An in vitro evaluation of the use of resin liner to reduce microleakage and improve retention of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1992;17:112-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
18.Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction: The influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent 1996;21:17-24.  Back to cited text no. 18
19.Heintze S, Forjanic M, Cavalleri A. Microleakage of Class II restorations with different tracers - comparison with SEM quantitative analysis. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:259-67.  Back to cited text no. 19
20.Manders CA, Garcia-Godoy F, Barnwell GM. Effect of a copal varnish, ZOE or glass ionomer cement bases on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Am J Dent 1990;3:63-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
21.M R, Sajjan GS, B N K, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:9-15.  Back to cited text no. 21
22.Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of class V resin composite restorations by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69:1240-3.  Back to cited text no. 22

Correspondence Address:
Shefali Sawani
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Subharti Dental College, NH-58, Delhi-Haridwar Bypass Road, Meerut - 250 005, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.136450

Rights and Permissions


  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Materials and me...
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded387    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal