Table 1: Studies that investigated micro leakage and marginal adaptation of flowable composites.

First author + year Site of resin application Tested variables Conclusion
Olmez, A [22] 2004 Class II composite restorations with the margins below the
cemento-enamel junction as a liner
Marginal microleakage and internal voids The use of flowable resin composites provided a reduction in marginal microleakage and a reduction in some parts of the internal voids or total voids
Tredwin, C.J [23]
2004
Class II cavities as aliner Micro leakage Leakage data do not support the use of flowable resin
composite linings in Class II resin composite restorations
Lindberg, A [24]
2005
Class II resin composite
restorations as a liner
Interfacial adaptation Neither the use of flowable resin composite liner nor the curing used influenced the interfacial adaptation
Loguercio, A. D [25] 2005 Class V as a liner Clinical performance over 1 year The use of Filtek Flow as a liner under Filtek Z250 restorations did not improve the clinical performance of class V restorations after 6 and 12 months of evaluation.
Efes, B.G [26]
2006
Occlusal cavity as a liner Two –year clinical
performance
The clinical performance of occlusal restorations did not benefit from the additional use of the flowable composite.
Celik, C [27]
2007
Non-carious cervical lesions. Two-year clinical
performance
Different types of resin materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.
Sadeghi, M [28]
2009
Class II as gingival liner Micro leakage The groups utilizing flowable liners had significantly less microleakage with no significant difference between utilizing flowable composite or flowable compomer
Kubo, S [29]
2010
Non-carious cervical lesions Three-year clinical
performance
There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between the hybrid and the flowable composite for each variable acceptable clinical performance up to 3 years.
Gallo, J.R [30] 2010 Occlusal as a restoration Clinical efficacy Marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation significantly worsened at 36 months.
Van dijken, J.W [31]
2011
Class II restorations as a liner Long term clinical
performance
The use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer did not result in improved effectiveness of the Class II
restorations
Simi, B [32]
2011
Class II as a liner Micro leakage Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.
Bonilla, E.D [33]
2012.
Minimally invasive occlusal
restorations.
Micro leakage Using flowable composite in minimally invasive
occlusal restorations might result in undue restoration pitting
or degradation.
Arslan, S [34] 2013 Class V restorations as
intermediate material
Micro leakage Micro leakage is not affected by the application of either conventional or new-generation flowable composite resin as an intermediate material between composite resin
and dental substrates
Pecie, R [35] 2013 Class II as a liner Marginal adaptation The application of flowable composite as a liner may not improve marginal adaptation and is product dependent.

Back to Article