Marginal adaptation of class II resin composite restorations using incremental and bulk placement techniques: an ESEM study

summary  This in vitro study compared marginal gap formation in class II resin composite restorations. Forty caries‐free extracted molars were prepared in a standardized manner for class II restoration by one of four methods: bulk‐ or incrementally‐placed light‐activated resin composite (Amelogen), and bulk‐ or incrementally‐placed chemically activated composite (Rapidfill). The restored teeth, after finishing and polishing, and thermocycling, were examined using environmental scanning electron microscopy. Marginal gap measurements at predetermined facial and lingual margin sites showed no significant differences between the two sites within any of the groups. Both the light‐ and the chemically‐activated restorations showed no significant differences in mean marginal gap sizes whether they were placed by incremental or bulk techniques. Amelogen restorations placed by both methods had significantly larger margin gaps than those of each of the Rapidfill groups (P < 0·05). Thus, although method of placement of a given material had no significant effect on the quality of marginal adaptation, both of the chemically activated resin composite restorations produced significantly smaller marginal gaps than both the bulk‐ and incrementally‐placed light‐activated composites.