Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Direct versus Direct-Indirect Veneer Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Table 1

Microleakage score, percentage, and range for both techniques and composite resin groups.

Types of veneer technique	Types of the composite	Microleakage score and percentage
		0	1	2	3	4	Total	Range percentage of microleakage
Group A; Direct veneer technique	Nanohybrid composite	5; 0%	4; 7.68%	1; 28%	0; 0%	0; 0%	10; 5.88%	0–28%
	Microfilled composite	2; 0%	3; 15.66%	2; 38.75%	2; 56.25%	1; 79.25%	10; 31.63%	0–79.25%
Group B; Direct-indirect veneer technique	Nanohybrid composite	9; 0%	1; 2.25%	0; 0%	0; 0%	0; 0%	10; 0.22%	0–2.25%
	Microfilled composite	8; 0%	2; 9.75%	0; 0%	0; 0%	0; 0%	10; 1.95%	0–13.25%

The percentage in each score indicates the mean percentage of the microleakage in that score. The percentage in each total indicates the mean percentage of the microleakage in that group.