PubMed1991
Investigators differ on the use of a two-surface or multiple-surface scoring methodology in sectional microleakage studies. This study compared microleakage scores using both two-surface and multiple-surface scoring methods for two preparation types and two different dentin bonding agents. Twenty freshly extracted molars each received one box-shaped and one V-shaped restoration on the mesial or distal surface. Each restoration was cut occlusogingivally into four sections, yielding eight surfaces for scoring. Surfaces were marked to identify central (I), lateral (II), and end (III) locations, then scored by two calibrated raters. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test showed a statistically significant difference (p less than or equal to 0.05) in median microleakage scores obtained by an end two- surface and multiple-surface evaluation for V-shaped preparations restored with Scotchbond 2, P-50. No other statistically significant comparisons were detected. Results suggest that microleakage may be more extreme at end surfaces and that these end surfaces should be scored so that an accurate microleakage value could be assigned to composite restorations.