Peris, A. R.Duarte, S.de Andrade, M. F.2014-05-202014-05-202003-02-01Quintessence International. Carol Stream: Quintessence Publ Co Inc., v. 34, n. 2, p. 93-98, 2003.0033-6572http://hdl.handle.net/11449/16624Objective: the goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class 11 restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). Method and materials: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class 11 standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2 - adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3 - adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z1 00 resin composite; G4 - adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5degreesC and 55degreesC for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. Results: the results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. Conclusions: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.93-98engcompactable resin compositeflowable resin compositemicrohybrid resin compositemicroleakageArtigoWOS:000181917000003Acesso restrito2897622509429759