Abstract: Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage around class V restorations
of two self-adhesive restorative materials applied with different bonding techniques. Materials and
methods: 60 Class V cavities were prepared on sound extracted molars then randomly divided into
two groups according to the type of self-adhesive restorative materials tested (A); (A1): Surefil
one™ bulk fill composite hybrid and (A2): Vertise™ Flow resin composite. Each group was
subdivided into three subgroups of according to the bonding technique utilized (B); (B1): Selfadhesive restorative material alone, (B2): Acid etch+ Self-adhesive restorative material, and (B3):
Acid etch+ adhesive system+ Self-adhesive restorative material. After restoring Class V cavities,
specimens were immersed in methylene blue solution for four hours. Then specimens were
sectioned at bucco-lingual direction through the center of the restorations. The tooth restoration
interface was examined at the occlusal and cervical margins and dye penetration was measured in
micrometer under a stereomicroscope. Results: Surefil One showed higher statistically significant
microleakage mean values compared to Vertise Flow. In addition, the cervical margins showed higher
microleakage mean values compared to the occlusal margins. Acid etch+ adhesive system+ Selfadhesive restorative material bonding technique showed the lowest statistically significant
microleakage mean values with both tested material compared to other bonding techniques.
Conclusions: Vertise Flow self- adhesive resin composite had better sealing ability to class V
prepared cavities when compared to Surefil One bulk-fill composite hybrid. Universal adhesives
with prior etching step improved the sealing ability of the tested self-adhesive restorative materials.