International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto

Pracheth T V, Veena S Pai, Vedavathi B, Priyanka Girish, Sujith R, Abijeth Bhaskar, Payel Mazumdar

Keywords : Bioactive-restorative, Biomimetics, Composite resin restorations, Dye extraction test, Esthetic restorative materials, Marginal microleakage

Citation Information : T V P, Pai VS, B V, Girish P, R S, Bhaskar A, Mazumdar P. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (11):1272-1276.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2958

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To compare the microleakage in class V cavities restored with Activa Bioactive Restorative, Activa Pronto, and nanohybrid composite. Materials and methods: Standardized class V cavity preparations (mesiodistal: 3 mm; occlusocervical: 2 mm; axial depth: 1 mm) were made on the buccal surface of 60 extracted intact maxillary premolar teeth. The preparations were divided into three experimental groups (n = 20) depending on the restorative material used. Group I: Nanohybrid composite resin, group II: Activa Bioactive Restorative, and group III: Activa Pronto. Samples were polished and thermocycled at 5–55 °C with a dwell time of 60 seconds for 1,000 cycles. The apices were sealed with sticky wax and two coats of nail varnish applied 1 mm away from the restorative margins. Teeth samples were placed in 2% of methylene blue for 24 hours washed and processed for dye extraction method. Teeth samples were placed in a test tube containing 1 mL of concentrated nitric acid (65%wt) for 3 days. Test tubes were centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 5 minutes, and 100 µL of the supernatant from each was transferred to a plate. The dye absorption was measured by an automated UV spectrophotometer at 550 nm using concentrated nitric acid as the blank. Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis was performed to compare the mean microleakage scores between the three groups. Results: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in mean microleakage scores between Activa Pronto (0.024 ± 0.002), Activa Bioactive Restoratives (0.045 ± 0.003), and nanohybrid composite resin materials (0.069 ± 0.003). The Activa Pronto group (0.024 ± 0.002) showed least microleakage values as compared to nanohybrid composite resin and Activa Bioactive Restorative group. Conclusion: Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restorative materials may be considered as replacement to the routinely used nanohybrid composites especially in class V cavities due to their bioactive properties and better esthetics. Clinical significance: Based on the results of our study and that found in the literature, it is evident that newer bioactive restorative materials, Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restoratives showed significantly less microleakage in class Vcavities when compared to conventionally used nanohybrid composite resins.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Wu B, Hybels C, Liang J, et al. Social stratification and tooth loss among middle-aged and older Americans from 1988 to 2004. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014;42(6):495–502.
  2. Kumara-Raja B, Radha G. Prevalence of root caries among elders living in residential homes of Bengaluru city, India. J Clin Exp Dent 2016;8(3):e260.
  3. El-Marakby AM, Al-Sabri FA, Alharbi SA, et al. Noncarious cervical lesions as abfraction: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities of lesions: a review article. Dentistry 2017;7(438):1–6.
  4. Lussi A, Hellwig E, Ganss C, et al. Dental erosion. Oper Dent 2009;34(3):251–262.
  5. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, et al. Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites. Dent Mater 2007;23(6):749–754.
  6. Grippo JO, Simring M, Schreiner S. Attrition, abrasion, corrosion and abfraction revisited: a new perspective on tooth surface lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(8):1109–1118.
  7. Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJT, Wilson NHF. The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J 1999;49(3):139–143.
  8. Ichim I, Li Q, Loughran J, et al. Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dent Mater 2007;23(12):1553–1561.
  9. Ichim I, Schmidlin PR, Kieser JA, et al. Mechanical evaluation of cervical glass-ionomer restorations: 3D finite element study. J Dent 2007;35(1):28–35.
  10. Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJT, Mc Farlane T, et al. Effect of restored and unrestored non-carious cervical lesions on the fracture resistance of previously restored maxillary premolar teeth. J Dent 1998;26(5–6):427–433.
  11. El-Bahrawy E, Attia R. Fluoride releasing potential and recharging capacity of different bioactive restorative materials (a comparative in-vitro study). Egypt Dent J 2020;66(2):1295–1309.
  12. Kidd EAM. Microleakage: a review. J Dent 1976;4(5):199–206.
  13. Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Davidson CL, et al. The relevance of microleakage studies. Int Dent SA 2007;9(3):64–74.
  14. Ghazal D, Koheil S, Mehesen M. Microleakage of a recent type of bioactive restorative materials (Activa) (in vitro study). Alexandria Dent J 2020;46:92–98.
  15. Advantages C. in a Dental Composite Nature's Magic. pp. 3–4.
  16. Yavuz I, Aydin AH, Ulku R, et al. New technique: Measurement of microleakage volume in the marginal gaps of the dental restorations. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 2005;19(3):184–191.
  17. Benazzi S, Nguyen HN, Schulz D, et al. The evolutionary paradox of tooth wear: simply destruction or inevitable adaptation? PLoS One 2013;8(4):e62263.
  18. Skaria S, Berk KJ. Experimental dental composites containing a novel methacrylate-functionalized calcium phosphate component: evaluation of bioactivity and physical properties. Polymers (Basel) 2021;13(13):2095.
  19. Jain K, Katge F, Poojari M, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional GIC restorative materials in primary molars: an in vitro study microleakage of three restorative materials. Int J Dent 2022;2022:7932930.
  20. Kaushik M, Yadav M. Marginal microleakage properties of Activa bioactive restorative and nanohybrid composite resin using two different adhesives in non carious cervical lesions - an in vitro study. J West Afr Coll Surg 2017;7(2):1–14.
  21. Ghazal DM, Koheil S, Mehesen M. Microleakage of a recent type of bioactive. Alex Dent J 2020;46(2):92–98.
  22. Perdigão J, Araujo E, Ramos RQ, et al. Adhesive dentistry: current concepts and clinical considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(1):51–68.
  23. Moezizadeh M, Kazemipour M. Effect of different placement techniques on microleakage of class V composite restorations. J Dent 2009;2(1):205–211.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.