World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

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).


Abstract

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.

HTML PDF Share
  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/j.dental.2018.11.027.
  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/j.dental.2008.01.009.
  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.