This study evaluated the influence of material combinations used in the resin coating technique (RCT) on the marginal adaptation of indirect restorations with gingival margins in enamel (EM) and cement (CM). Eighty third-molars were used. Two cavities were prepared in each tooth. The cavities were distributed into 16 groups. Cavities with EM were filled with the following material combinations: G1: Single-Bond 2 (Sb2), G2: Sb2 + Bond/Scotchbond-Multipurpose (Sb2B), G3: Sb2 + Filtek-Flow Z350 (Sb2Fl), G4: Scotchbond-Multipurpose (SBMP), G5: Clearfil-S3 (CS3), G6: CS3 + Bond/Clearfil-SE Bond (CSE3B), G7: CS3 + Protect Liner F (CS3PL) and G8: Clearfil SE Bond + Protect Liner F (CSEBPL). The same combinations were applied to the cavities in CM: G9, G10, G11, G12, G13, G14, G15, G16, respectively. The fillings were performed with the Sinfony-System (3M/ESPE). After 24 h, the teeth were submitted to thermocycling (2,000 cycles, 5° to 55°C) and load-cycling (50,000 cycles, 50 N). Next, the Caries-Detector (Kuraray) was applied to the restoration margins. Images from the proximal margin were evaluated using the Image-Tool 3.0 software. The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The mean values (%) for the groups were: EM: G1=46.68, G2=15.53, G3=19.83, G4=27.53; G5=59.49, G6=25.13, G7=34.37, G8=15.20; CM: G9=38.38, G10=23.25, G11=26.97, G12=25.85, G13=37.81, G14=30.62, G15=29.17, G16=20.31. The highest percentages of marginal gap on EM or CM were found in the groups that did not use a liner. It can be concluded that the most appropriate RCT combinations were the groups that used a liner.
marginal adaptation; resin coating; adhesives; indirect restorations
