Comparison of microleakage in restorative materials used for deep cervical margin elevation: a systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.46289Keywords:
cervical margin relocation, class II cavity, close sandwich technique, deep marginal elevation, marginal quality, marginal seal, microleakage, open sandwich technique, proximal box elevationAbstract
The present study aims to evaluate and compare the rate of microleakage (ML) in deep margin elevation (DME) of posterior teeth with subgingival margins using different materials and techniques. Methodology: An electronic search was conducted between May and August 2025 across three databases, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, using the following keywords: “deep marginal elevation” OR “proximal box elevation” OR “Cervical margin relocation” OR “coronal margin relocation” OR “open sandwich technique” AND “microleakage.” A secondary search was conducted in PubMed using the same terms without quotation marks. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied, and the search was restricted to full-text, in vitro studies published in English between 2014 and 2025 that evaluated ML in DME. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN) tool by two independent reviewers. Results: A total of 53 articles were screened, and 18 were included. The most frequently compared material among the studies was resin composite, particularly bulk-fill flowable resin composite (BF-FRC) composites, while various types of glass ionomers were less commonly evaluated. Lower ML was observed with the snowplow and centripetal techniques. The type of adhesive was found to influence the marginal integrity of restorations. Conclusion: The evidence highlights the superiority of BF-FRC composites in reducing ML rates in DME when used with self-etch adhesives. Nevertheless, clinicians should remain cautious considering the limitations of the existing evidence. Regarding the technique employed, current evidence is insufficient to determine which approach more effectively reduces ML due to methodological heterogeneity and the lack of direct comparisons.
Downloads
References
Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Vanloy A, Declerck D, Lambrechts P, Peumans M, et al. Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):683–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02894-0
Mugri MH, Sayed ME, Nedumgottil BM, Bhandi S, Raj AT, Testarelli L, et al. Treatment prognosis of restored teeth with crown lengthening vs. deep margin elevation: a systematic review. Materials. 2021;14(21):6733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216733
Aldakheel M, Aldosary K, Alnafissah S, Alaamer R, Alqahtani A, Almuhtab N. Deep margin elevation: current concepts and clinical considerations: a review. Medicina (Mex). 2022;58(10):1482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101482
Samartzi TK, Papalexopoulos D, Ntovas P, Rahiotis C, Blatz MB. Deep margin elevation: a literature review. Dent J. 2022;10(3):48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10030048
El-Ma’aita AM, Radwan H, Al-Rabab’ah MA. Deep margin elevation: a retrospective clinical study. J Adhes Dent. 2024;26:117–24.
Geo TD, Gupta S, Gupta SG, Rana KS. Is deep margin elevation a reliable tool for cervical margin relocation? A comparative review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2024;14(1):33–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.12.002
Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1998;10(1):47–54.
Sarfati A, Tirlet G. Deep margin elevation versus crown lengthening: biologic width revisited. Int J Esthet Dent. 2018;13(3):334–56.
Juloski J, Köken S, Ferrari M. No correlation between two methodological approaches applied to evaluate cervical margin relocation. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(4):624–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-410
Kidd EAM. Microleakage: a review. J Dent. 1976;4(5):199–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(76)90048-8
Roider M, Kern M, Passia N. Influence of proximal box elevation on microleakage in 3Y-TZP zirconia ceramic fixed dental prostheses after thermomechanical loading: a laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;133(5):1293.e1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.01.042
Köken S, Juloski J, Ferrari M. Influence of cervical margin relocation and adhesive system on microleakage of indirect composite restorations. J Osseointegration. 2019;11(1):21–8.
Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Dippold C, Vosen VE, Naumann M, Jablonski-Momeni A, et al. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of resin composite inlays in vitro. J Dent. 2012;40(12):1068–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.019
McLean JW. Dentinal bonding agents versus glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int. 1996;27(10):659–67.
Dietrich T, Lösche AC, Lösche GM, Roulet JF. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in class II cavities with cervical margins in dentin. J Dent. 1999;27(2):119–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00035-9
Taori P, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Mahapatra J. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II restorations using open- and closed-sandwich techniques with zirconomer as an intermediate material: an in vitro study. Cureus. 2022;14(10):e30109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30109
Tee R, Vach K, Schlueter N, Jacker-Guhr S, Luehrs A-K. High C-factor cavities: how do ‘snowplow technique’, adhesive application mode and aging influence the microtensile bond strength to dentin? J Adhes Dent. 2024;26(1):1–10.
Patil BS, Kamatagi L, Saojii H, Chabbra N, Mutsaddi S. Cervical microleakage in giomer restorations: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21(2):161–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2744
Hassan K, Mante F, List G, Dhuru V. A modified incremental filling technique for class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58(2):153–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90167-3
Bichacho N. The centripetal build-up for composite resin posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1994;6(3):17–23.
Rethlefsen ML, Page MJ. PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022;110(2):253–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1449
Sheth VH, Shah NP, Jain R, Bhanushali N, Bhatnagar V. Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: the QUIN. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(6):1038–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.05.019
Tran L, Tam DNH, Elshafay A, Dang T, Hirayama K, Huy NT. Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w
Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al. PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in endodontology: a consensus-based development. Int Endod J. 2021;54(9):1482–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13542
Aljamhan AS, Alhazzaa SA, Albakr AH, Habib SR, Zafar MS. Comparing the ability of various resin-based composites and techniques to seal margins in class-II cavities. Polymers. 2021;13(17):2921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172921
Feiz A, Sajedi M, Jafari N, Swift EJ. Evaluation of microleakage in class II composite estorations: bonded-base and bulk-fill techniques. Dent Res J. 2021;18:89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.328757
Şenol AA, Karabulut Gençer B, Tarçın B, Kahramanoğlu E, Yılmaz Atalı P. Microleakage and marginal integrity of ormocer/methacrylate-based bulk-fill resin restorations in MOD cavities: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Polymers. 2023;15(7):1716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15071716
Lorca DX, Tiffi C, Sarmiento R, et al. In vitro comparison of marginal infiltration between a conventional resin and a bulk-fill resin in the relocation of cervical margins technique. Oral Res. 2023;12(1):1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2023.001
Sawani S, Arora V, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II estorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(4):344–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.136450
Bilgrami A, Alam MK, Qazi FUR, Maqsood A, Basha S, Ahmed N, et al. An in-vitro evaluation of microleakage in resin-based restorative materials at different time ntervals. Polymers. 2022;14(3):466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030466
Zhang H, Li H, Cong Q, Zhang Z, Du A, Wang Y. Effect of proximal box elevation on racture resistance and microleakage of premolars restored with ceramic endocrowns. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0252269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252269
Gyanani HC. Microleakage in sub-gingival class II preparations restored using two different liners for open sandwich technique supplemented with or without ultrasonic agitation: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(3):ZC70–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/18120.7479
Reddy KH, Priya BD, Malini DL, Mohan TM, Bollineni S, Gandhodi HC.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shalonny Brithany Garzón Idrovo, Jaqueline Michelle Naula Farez, Martha Alejandra Cornejo Cordova, Maria de Lourdes Leon Vintimilla
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
