In vitro comparison of marginal infiltration between a conventional resin and a bulk-fill resin, in the relocation of cervical margins technique

Introduction: Proximal lesions that exceed the cement enamel limit (ACE) under the gingival margin complicate impressions and the adhesive technique. Compare the magnitude of micro infiltration between conventional resin and bulk fill resin in the cervical margin relocation technique. Materials and Methods: 48 samples of human teeth re-ceived two preparations: occluso-mesial (OM) and occluso-distal (OD) under LAC; first they received the cervical margin relocation technique (RMC) with bulk fill and conventional resin; then restored with semi-direct resinous inlays. Sample analysis: immersion in 50% colloidal silver nitrate solution, 24 hours, 37°C and cut mesiodistally. Observed under a stereoscopic magnifying glass to assess dye penetration and digitally photographed, analyzed with “Image J” software. Results: Sample of 96 cavities in two groups of 48 units; control group restored with conventional resin with incremental technique and study group restored with bulk fill resin, mono-incremental technique. Probabilistic sampling. No statistically significant diffe-rences in percentage of microinfiltrated area between Filtek™ Z250™ and Filtek™ Bulk Fill™ (p-value= 0.68). Discussion: Various studies show that the presence of marginal microinfiltration exist independent of: restorative technique, consistency, adhesive mechanism and polyme-rization technique. The research carried out is no exception, observing a similar degree for both systems. Conclusions: Results allow us to conclude that conventi-onal resin and bulk fill resin did not show significant differences in microleakage percentages for the RMC technique. Outside the study framework, bulk fill resins would have comparative advantages; better behavior against light in depths greater than 2 mm, less sensitivity to the “C” factor, and less clinical time.