## 3 Results
### Microleakage Test
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **MLKc** & **MLKo** & **LAI** & **RMLKc** & **RMLKo** \\ \hline B (n = 10) & & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 431\} & \{0 to 0\} & \{1546 to 2138\} & \{0 to 0.28\} & \{0 to 0\} \\ Median (Q1 to Q3) & 0 (0 to 187.5) & 0 (0 to 0) & 1948 (1751.3 to 2028.5) & 0 (0 to 0.11) & 0 (0 to 0) \\ Mean (SD) & 96.4 (161.7) & 0 (0) & 1894.2 (190.8) & 0.06 (0.1) & 0 (0) \\ \hline BF (n = 10) & & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 1347\} & \{0 to 0\} & \{1252 to 2010\} & \{0 to 0.72\} & \{0 to 0\} \\ Median (Q1 to Q3) & 0 (0 to 417.3) & 0 (0 to 0) & 1818 (1630 to 1927.5) & 0 (0 to 0.21) & 0 (0 to 0) \\ Mean (SD) & 301.5 (474.4) & 0 (0) & 1752.3 (235.1) & 0.18 (0.29) & 0 (0) \\ \hline D (n = 10) & & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 1856\} & \{0 to 300\} & \{1788 to 2007\} & \{0 to 1\} & \{0 to 0.16\} \\ Median (Q1 to Q3) & 470 (0 to 1083.3) & 0 (0 to 0) & 1862 (1852.3 to 1887.3) & 0.24 (0 to 0.57) & 0 (0 to 0) \\ Mean (SD) & 626.9 (675.7) & 40.2 (96.7) & 1875.8 (60) & 0.33 (0.36) & 0.02 (0.05) \\ \hline DF (n = 10) & & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 1364\} & \{0 to 0\} & \{1576 to 2040\} & \{0 to 0.72\} & \{0 to 0\} \\ Median (Q1 to Q3) & 0 (0 to 102.3) & 0 (0 to 0) & 1884.5 (1820.5 to 1945.8) & 0 (0 to 0.05) & 0 (0 to 0) \\ Mean (SD) & 279.2 (538.6) & 0 (0) & 1862.6 (134.2) & 0.15 (0.29) & 0 (0) \\ \hline \(p\)-value * & 0.2488 & 0.1044 & 0.4997 & 0.3128 & 0.1044 \\ \hline MLKc = cervical marginal microleakage; MLKo = occlusal marginal microleakage; LAI = length of adhesive interface; RMLKc = ratio of cervical marginal microleakage; RMLKo = ratio of occlusal marginal microleakage; B = Beautiful II LS\({}^{\text{sp}}\); BF = Beautiful Flow Plus\({}^{\text{sp}}\) F03; D = Dynamic Plus\({}^{\text{sp}}\); DF = Dynamic Flow\({}^{\text{sp}}\); Q1 = 25 th percentile; Q3 = 75 th percentile; SD = standard deviation. * Kruskal-Wallis test. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Data summary collected for microleakage test based on material type: cement-located restorations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **MLKc** & **MLKo** & **LAI** & **RMLKc** & **RMLKo** \\ \hline B (n = 10) & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 784\} & \{0 to 0\} & \{1527 to 2017\} & \{0 to 0.41\} & \{0 to 0\} \\ Median (Q1 to Q3) & 0 (0 to 0) & 0 (0 to 0) & 1875 (1755.25 to 1965.25) & 0 (0 to 0) & 0 (0 to 0) \\ Mean (SD) & 129 (279.7) & 0 (0) & 1845.4 (152.9) & 0.07 (0.14) & 0 (0) \\ \hline BF (n = 10) & & & & \\ \{Min to Max\} & \{0 to 1440\} & \{0 to 0\} & \{1529 to 2081\} &From a qualitative point of view, marginal microleakage was identified as a pink line of different dimensions infiltrating the tooth-resin composite interface. Generally, colored infiltrations around restorations were seldom found on tooth sections (Figures 3c, 4a and 5a) or on optical microscopy images (Figure 5b) regardless of the type of material. In the majority of tooth sections, no infiltration around restorations was observed (Figures 3e and 6a). In all the cases of composite resins included in our testing procedure, for both types of restorations, the optical microscopy images showed a particular degree of marginal microleakage (Figure 5b) emerging in the cervical part of the restorations. However, for most of the sections, no dye penetration was identified (Figures 4b and 6c). Very seldom microleakage was observed by optical microscopy into occlusal part of the restorations. Non-cavitated occlusal caries were additionally identified (Figure S1d). Figure 2: Variability of RMLK by type of restoration and material: RMLKc for restorations located in enamel (**a1**) and cementum (**b2**). RMLK = ratio of marginal microleakage; RMLKc = cervical RMLK; RMLKo = occlusal RMLK; B = Beautiful II LS\({}^{\text{\textcircled{B}}}\); BF = Beautiful Flow Plus\({}^{\text{\textcircled{B}}}\); D = Dynamic Plus\({}^{\text{\textcircled{B}}}\); DF = Dynamic Flow\({}^{\text{\textcircled{B}}}\).