AbstractObjectivesThis study assessed the enamel and dentin margin microleakage of class II cavities of primary molars restored with a bulk‐fill and a conventional composite.Materials and MethodsIn this in vitro, experimental study, standard class II cavities were created in the proximal surfaces of 60 extracted primary molars. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups, and restored with SonicFill bulk‐fill and Filtek Z250 conventional composite along with Single Bond 2 adhesive. The teeth were coated with two layers of nail varnish to 1 mm around the restoration margins, and the apices were sealed with wax. The teeth underwent 1500 thermal cycles and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. They were then immersed in 1 M silver nitrate in the dark, rinsed with water, immersed in developing solution for 12 h, and exposed to fluorescent light. Next, they were mesiodistally sectioned, and digitally photographed under a stereomicroscope at ×10 magnification. The dye penetration depth was measured by a blind observer, and analyzed by the Mann–Whitney U test (α= .05).ResultsNo significant difference existed in microleakage between the two composite groups at the enamel (p= .76) or dentin (p= .16) margins. In both composite groups, microleakage at the dentin margins was significantly greater than that at the enamel margins (p= .000).ConclusionConsidering the absence of a significant difference in microleakage, SonicFill bulk‐fill composite can be used as an alternative to Filtek Z250 conventional composite for restoration of primary molars to benefit from its advantages such as simpler and faster application.