Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Restorative Material versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Cervical Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Yehia Hafez Yehia; Amir Hafez Ibrahim; Eman Abou-auf; Amira Farid Elzogbhi

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.7952

Authors

Yehia Hafez Yehia Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1115-2216
Amir Hafez Ibrahim Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Eman Abou-auf Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Amira Farid Elzogbhi Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.7952

Keywords:

ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™, Fuji II LC®, Class V, USHPS criteria

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective:

In the context of great attention given to fluoride containing restorative material and development of easily applied and reliable material for different clinical situations. This current study aimed to compare Bioactive resin-based composite (ACTIVA) to Resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) in cervical restorations.

Materials and methods:

Fuji II LC® capsules (conventional resin modified glass ionmer), or ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ (enhanced resin-modified glass-ionmer) with using Etch-Rite™ and Prime&Bond universal (universal adhesive system) were applied randomly in thirty anterior teeth and six premolars with class V cavities; all materials were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline (one week), after six months, and after 12 months by two blinded assessors using modified USPHS criteria.

Results:

The results in this study were ordinal data, so Mann-Whitney test was used to compare between tested materials. Freidman test was used to test the effect of time within tested materials. Kruskal Wallis test used to compare the interaction between variables for all tested parameters. The results were statistically significant when p≤0.05. There was no significant difference between interaction of both restorations and time in marginal discoloration (p=0.051), recurrent caries (p=1.00) and retention analysis (p=1.00), but there was a significant change in marginal adaptation (p=0.001), surface roughness (p=0.017), color change (p= 0.004) and surface luster (p=0.017) with 100 % survival rate in this study.

Conclusions:

Both conventional resin-modified glass ionmer and enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer are acceptable as intermediate restoration. Bioactive restorations proved to retain its esthetic characteristics over the conventional one. Bioactive restorations with an adhesive system can be used as long-term restoration in small-defined cavities, not in stress-bearing areas.

Clinical relevance:

Within the limitations of this study, ACTIVA BIO-ACTIVE Restorative showed similar results to FUJI II LC in class V cavity restorations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL. Is secondary caries with composites a materialbased problem? Dent Mater. 2015;31(11):e247-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001 PMid:26410151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001

Ruengrungsom C, Burrow MF, Parashos P, Palamara JEA. Evaluation of F, Ca, and P release and microhardness of eleven ion-leaching restorative materials and the recharge efficacy using a new Ca/P containing fluoride varnish. J Dent. 2020;102:103474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103474 PMid:32941973 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103474

Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Kavrik F, Yasa B, Botsali M. Fluoride release/recharging ability and bond strength of glass ionomer cements to sound and caries-affected dentin. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017;20(2):226-34. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.178917 PMid:28091442 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.178917

Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Droz D. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008;75(2):125-33. PMid:18647507

Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. J Dent (Tehran). 2018;15(4):205-13. PMid:30405729

Park JK, Hur B, Kim SK. Stress distribution of class V composite resin restorations: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2008;33(1):28-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.1.028

Alkhudhairy FI, Ahmad ZH. Comparison of shear bond strength and microleakage of various bulk-fill bioactive dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(12):997-1002. PMid:27965486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1970

Tamilsevi R, Anuradha B, Arunakumari V, Porkodi I, Sathyapriya B. Current trends in smart materials-a review. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2019;10(12):2536-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37506/v10/i12/2019/ijphrd/192402

Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. Gen Dent. 2018;66(3):32-6. PMid:29714697

Bansal R, Burgess J, Lawson NC. Wear of an enhanced resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material. Am J Dent. 2016;29(3):171-4. PMid:27505995

Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: A resinmodified glass-ionomer bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(1):60-5. PMid:25822408

Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow B, Pameijer C. Flexural strength and fatigue of new activa RMGICs. J Dent Res. 2014;93:254.

Perdigão J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion-not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020;56(1):190-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004

Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(2):293-300. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-161 PMid:29279547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-161

Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, Dedania MS, Bajpai N. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with activa bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: A randomized control study. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(1):92-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18 PMid:30820090

van Dijken JW, Pallesen U, Benetti A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dent Mater. 2019;35(2):335-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027 PMid:30527586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027

Perdigao J, Dutra-Correa M, Saraceni SH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper Dent. 2012;37(6):591-601. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-415-C PMid:22770485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2341/11-415-C

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 PMid:20332511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869

Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2005;9(4):209-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0 PMid:16421996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0

Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(1):13-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2205 PMid:29358529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2205

Liu Y, Tjaderhane L, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Li N, Mao J, et al. Limitations in bonding to dentin and experimental strategies to prevent bond degradation. J Dent Res. 2011;90(8):953-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510391799 PMid:21220360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510391799

Benetti AR, Michou S, Larsen L, Peutzfeldt A, Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material. Biomater Investig Dent. 2019;6(1):90-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2019.1696202 PMid:31998876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2019.1696202

Lassila L, Sailynoja E, Prinssi R, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. The effect of polishing protocol on surface gloss of different restorative resin composites. Biomater Investig Dent. 2020;7(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2019.1708201 PMid:32010900 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2019.1708201

Porenczuk A, Jankiewicz B, Naurecka M, Bartosewicz B, Sierakowski B, Gozdowski D, et al. A comparison of the remineralizing potential of dental restorative materials by analyzing their fluoride release profiles. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2019;28(6):815-23. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/94140 PMid:30740943 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/94140

Tiskaya M, Al-Eesa NA, Wong FSL, Hill RG. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent Mater. 2019;35(12):1757-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.004 PMid:31699444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.004