1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, G. Pulla Reddy Dental College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India.
2Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Meghana institute of Dental sciences, Mallaram village, nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Online published on 22 June, 2012.
Aim of this study was to compare class II composite restoration using flowable composites as lining with various thickness and curing techniques by evaluating internal voids. Fifty intact molars, each prepared with two box-only class II cavities, were randomly divided into five groups: Group I, P 60 filling alone; Group II, ultra thin flowable composite lining (0.5–1 mm) co-cured with overlying composite; Group III, thin lining (1–1.5) co-cured with overlying composite; Group IV, ultra thin lining (0.5–1 mm) precured and Group V, thin lining (1–1.5) precured. Internal voids were recorded in the gingival interface, cervical and occlusal halves of restorations. Precured techniques for flowable composite lining showed the least number of interface and cervical voids where as the co-cured technique of flowable and packable composites showed the least number of occlusal voids.
Packable composite, flowable composite, precure technique, co-cure technique, ultra thinlining, thin lining
