RESUMO
Bonding composites in deep posterior proximal cavities may be a challenge. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the preferences of dentists in selection of technique to prevent microleakage in posterior deep proximal composite restorations. One hundred questionnaires were randomly distributed to the dental surgeons working in hospitals and clinics in Lahore. The questionnaires were designed to elicit information regarding selection of technique for posterior composite restoration. Ninety two completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty eight general dental practitioners and thirty four specialists responded to the questionnaire. 62% dentists adopted sandwich technique using RMGIC, 60% used GIC in sandwich restoration with immediate composite placement, 39% usedflowable composite as a gingival increment, 4.4% used GIC with delay of 48 hours for composite placement and 4.4% reported to do restoration without using any liner. Difference was found among three groups of dentists in the selection of restorative technique but it was not significant. Sandwich restoration with RMGIC or GIC was the main preference among dentists in deep posterior proximal restorations followed by the use offlowable composite