The use of flowable composites as liners in Class II packable composites has been suggested by some manufacturers. However, the contributions of this technique are unproven. This study evaluated marginal microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations with and without the use of a flowable composite liner. A conventional microhybrid composite was used as a control. Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class II cavities was evaluated using 45Ca and autoradiographs. Fifty non-carious, restoration-free human molar teeth were used. Separate mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal Class II cavity preparations were made in each tooth. Gingival margins of all cavities were placed 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Four Packable composites (Alert, Surefil, Pyramid and Solitaire) and one conventional microhybrid composite (Renew) with their respective manufacturer’s bonding agents were used to restore the cavities. One side of each tooth was restored with composite alone, while the other side was restored with the composite lined with that manufacturer’s flowable liner. The restored teeth were thermally stressed and 45Ca was used to evaluate microleakage. Two independent evaluators scored leakage based on the autoradiographs. The results showed flowable composites helped reduce microleakage at gingival margins of Class II restorations (p < 0.05). Gingival margins had higher microleakage than occlusal margins (p < 0.05). Without flowable liners, three packable composites (Alert, Pyramid and Surefil) showed higher leakage (p < 0.05) than the microhybrid control. Only Solitaire packable composite without liner showed no significant difference in microleakage to the control (p > 0.05). Although the flowable liners help reduce microleakage, Alert and Pyramid packable composites with liners still showed higher leakage than the control (p < 0.05). Surefil and Solitaire packable composites with flowable liners showed no significant difference in microleakage (p > 0.05) to the control.
.
