A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Composite Restorations

Aim. To compare and evaluate the microleakage in class V lesions restored with composite resin with and without liner and injectable nanohybrid composite resin. Materials and Methodology. 60 class V cavities were prepared in 30 freshly extracted teeth. After etching and application of bonding agents these cavities were divided into three groups: Group A (n=20)—restored with composite resin, Group B (n=20)—flowable composite resin liner + composite resin, and Group C (n=20)—restored with injectable composite resin. After curing all the specimens were subjected to thermocycling and cyclic loading. Specimens were stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin and evaluated for dye penetration. Results. Results are subjected to Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon test. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, none of the three materials were free from microleakage. All the three materials showed more microleakage at gingival margins compared to occlusal margins. Among all the groups G-ænial Flo showed the least microleakage at the gingival wall

Esthetic Rehabilitation with Direct Composite Veneering: A Report of 2 Cases

Esthetic or cosmetic dentistry is one of the main areas of dental practice. Increasing demand of patients for esthetics has resulted in the development of several techniques for restoring the anterior teeth. Composite resin restorations have become an integral part of contemporary restorative dentistry and can be called “star of minimal invasion” due to its conservative concepts. The direct composite veneering allows restoring the tooth in a natural way and preservation of sound tooth structure when compared to indirect restorations. This article presents two case reports of esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth using direct composite veneering with two-year follow-up with acceptable outcome