World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Performance of a Bioactive Restorative Material vs a Glass Hybrid Restorative in Posterior Restorations in High-risk Caries Patients

Mona M Eissa, Mai Akah, Mai M Yousry, Heba Hamza, Hassan Hassanein, Cornelis H Pameijer

Keywords : ACTIVA bioactive restorative, Bioactive restorative material, EQUIA forte, FDI criteria, Glass hybrid restorative, Glass ionomer, High-risk caries, Posterior restorations, Randomized clinical trial, Split mouth

Citation Information : Eissa MM, Akah M, Yousry MM, Hamza H, Hassanein H, Pameijer CH. Clinical Performance of a Bioactive Restorative Material vs a Glass Hybrid Restorative in Posterior Restorations in High-risk Caries Patients. World J Dent 2021; 12 (4):292-300.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1844

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a bioactive restorative material vs a glass hybrid restorative material in posterior restorations in high caries risk patients. Materials and methods: High-risk caries patients with multiple posterior cavitated caries lesions were enrolled in this split-mouth clinical trial. Fifty randomly selected teeth received either a resin-modified glass ionomer bioactive resin-based composite [ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE (Activa)] (n = 25) or a bulk-fill glass hybrid restorative [EQUIA Forte Fil (Equia)] (n = 25). Materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two well-trained experienced blinded assessors evaluated the restorations at baseline, 6, and 12 months using FDI criteria for direct and indirect restorations. Results: The survival percentages for the intervention and comparator groups were 98% after 6 and 12 months. Regarding the primary outcome, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups. While for the secondary outcome, the color match parameter showed a significantly better score for Activa at baseline, 6, and 12 months. With respect to the anatomic form, Activa scored significantly better compared to Equia At 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001). Regarding functional properties, at baseline, no difference between the tested groups was observed for all functional parameters (p > 0.05). Furthermore, at 6 and 12 months, Activa scored significantly better for occlusal contour and wear compared to Equia (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ and EQUIA Forte Fil showed similar successful clinical performance while restoring permanent posterior teeth in high-risk caries patients. The use of EQUIA Forte Fil may be more appropriate as a semi-permanent restorative material in stress-bearing restorations. With respect to the esthetics of upper premolars, ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE RESTORATIVE™ exhibited superior esthetics. Clinical significance: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ may be used to restore permanent posterior teeth in high-risk caries patients offering enhanced esthetics and wear resistance.

  1. Zhou X, Huang X, Li M, et al. Development and status of resin composite as dental restorative materials. J Appl Poly Sci 2019;136(44):48180. DOI: 10.1002/app.48180.
  2. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008;87(8):710–719. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700802.
  3. Pameijer CH, Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow BR, et al. Flexural strength and flexural fatigue properties of resin-modified glass ionomers. J Clin Dent 2015;26(1):23–27.
  4. Bansal R, Burgess J, Lawson NC. Wear of an enhanced resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material. Am J Dentis 2016;29(3):171–174.
  5. Strassler HE, Fadm F. Glass ionomers for direct-placement restorations. Dent Econom 2011. 14.
  6. Fuhrmann D, Murchison D, Whipple S, et al. Properties of new glass-ionomer restorative systems marketed for stress-bearing areas. Operat Dentis 2020;45(1):104–110. DOI: 10.2341/18-176-L.
  7. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clinical Oral Investigat 2007;11(1):5–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7.
  8. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, et al. FDI World dental federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investigat 2010;14(4):349–366. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8.
  9. Alqadasi B, Aldhorae K, Halboub E, et al. The effectiveness of micro-osteoperforations during canine retraction: a three-dimensional randomized clinical trial. J Int Soc Prevent Commun Dentis 2019;9(6):637. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_233_19.
  10. Karanicolas PJ, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how? Canadian J Surg 2010;53(5):345.
  11. Atreja A, Bellam N, Levy SR. Strategies to enhance patient adherence: making it simple. Medscape General Med 2005;7(1):4.
  12. El-Bialy MR, Shaalan OO, El-Zohairy AA, et al. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology versus conventional high viscosity glass ionomer in class I cavities in patients with high caries risk: randomized controlled trial. J Int Oral Health 2020;12(3):203. DOI: 10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_297_19.
  13. Nassar HM, Platt JA. Effect of brushing with two different abrasives on fluoride release by high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. J Oral Sci 2015;57(4):379–384. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.57.379.
  14. El-Bahrawy EM, Attia RM. Fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity of different bioactive restorative materials (a comparative In-Vitro study). Egypt Dent J 2020;66(2-April (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics):1295–1309.
  15. Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, et al. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials 2020;13(10):2313. DOI: 10.3390/ma13102313.
  16. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J 2018(2):2017–2161. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-161.
  17. 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):335–343. DOI: 10.1016/
  18. Kunert M, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Bio-inductive materials in direct and indirect pulp capping—a review article. Materials 2020;13(5):1204. DOI: 10.3390/ma13051204.
  19. Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: a resin-modified glass-ionomer bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015;36(1):60–65.
  20. Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dentis 2011;24(2):124–128.
  21. Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 2019. 27. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678.
  22. Miletić I, Baraba A, Basso M, et al. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dentis 2020;22(3):235–247. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a44547.
  23. Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, et al. 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 Conservat Dentis: JCD 2019;22(1):92.
  24. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, et al. Clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in extended size class II cavities. Operat Dentis 2020;45(3):243–254. DOI: 10.2341/18-282-C.
  25. Vural UK, Meral E, Ergin E, et al. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investigat 2020;24(3):1229–1238. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02986-x.
  26. Ruengrungsom C, Palamara JE, Burrow MF. Comparison of ART and conventional techniques on clinical performance of glass-ionomer cement restorations in load bearing areas of permanent and primary dentitions: a systematic review. J Dentis 2018;78:1–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.07.008.
  27. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. DOI: 10.3390/jfb7030016.
  28. Sidhu SK, ed. Glass-ionomers in dentistry. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 60.
  29. Bishnoi N, de Ataide ID, Fernandes M, et al. Evaluating the marginal seal of a bioactive restorative material activa bioactive and two bulk fill composites in class II restorations: an in vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2020;6(3):98–102.
  30. Zaghlool RS, El-Baky A, Mahmoud R, et al. In Vitro evaluation of antibacterial effect of a new bioactive restorative material (activa). Indian J Pub Health Res Develop 2020;11(2):1820–1826.
  31. Abou ElReash A, Hamama H, Eldars W, et al. Antimicrobial activity and pH measurement of calcium silicate cements versus new bioactive resin composite restorative material. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):235. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0887-1.
  32. Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow BR. Wear resistance of new ACTIVA compared to other restorative materials. J Dent Res 2015;94:3522.
  33. Hayashi M, Sugeta A, Takahashi Y, et al. Static and fatigue fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with post–cores. Dent Mat 2008;24(9):1178–1186. DOI: 10.1016/
  34. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, et al. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investigat 2014;18(3):753–759. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1026-z.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.