Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material

Abstract

Objectives: Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative) to human teeth were compared with those of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) and a control resin composite (Ceram X Mono). Material and Methods: Shear bond strength and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentine were assessed after no pretreatment of the hard tissues or after etching with phosphoric acid (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative and Ceram X Mono) or polyacrylic acid (Fuji II LC). For ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, the effect of applying a self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply Sirona) was also investigated. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (a ¼ 0.05). Results: Bond strength and marginal adaptation in enamel and dentine were significantly different among the investigated materials (p<.05). Due to loss of restorations, it was not possible to measure bond strength of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative if no pretreatment was performed or if dentine was etched; however, use of the self-etch adhesive resulted in similar bond strength as Ceram X Mono. Etching improved adhesion of Fuji II LC to enamel and dentine. Regarding marginal adaptation, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative showed the highest wall-to-wall contraction to enamel in all pretreatment groups and the overall highest wall-to-wall contraction to dentine after etching. Due to loss of restorations, no marginal assessment was possible on cavities with margins in dentine when no pretreatment was used. The use of a self-etch adhesive with ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative resulted in similar adaptation to dentine compared to the other materials. Conclusion: The self-adhesive property of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is nonexistent.

Bio-Inductive Materials in Direct and Indirect Pulp Capping—A Review Article

“…Studies have reported overall higher microleakage of cavities restored with ACTIVA BioACTIVE if no previous etching was performed nor an adhesive applied, compared to cavities restored with resin composite [135,136]. Similar observations were presented in the study where bond strength measurement of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative after 28 days was not possible due to loss of restorations if no pretreatment was performed or if dentine was etched [52]. Under the conditions of this study, the conclusion can be drawn that self-adhesive property of ACTIVA BioACTIVE products is nonexistent; thus, it exhibits an insufficient protection of pulp in VPT (Table 3).…”

“…Despite the fact that ACTIVA BioACTIVE products are RMGICs, the laboratory and clinical findings indicate that the self-adhesive ability of the material is not elucidated [52]. The aforementioned hypothesis was confirmed in a 1-year clinical follow-up of posterior restorations made with ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, indicating a very high initial failure rate [134].…”

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

“…This composite has a pediatric version—ACTIVA Kids. It was initially marketed as a self-adhesive RMGIC, but after showing unsatisfactory results, the manufacturer now recommends its use with an adhesive [ 57 , 58 ]. While performing the systematic search for this review, protocols for future trials in pediatric dentistry, for this material, were found [ 59 ].…”

Marginal Adaptation, Compressive Strength, Water Sorption, Solubility and Ion Release of a Claimed Bioactive Restorative Material

“…ACTIVA is considered a hydrophilic resin modified GIC supplemented with bioglass and strengthened with a patented rubberized polymer resin. [16] Accordingly, two restorative materials were selected for this study to be compared with ACTIVA, a nanohybrid resin based composite (SphereTEC) in addition to a high viscosity glass ionomer (Fuji IX). SphereTEC is known for its spherical fillers that are claimed to provide incomparable adaptation to the tooth cavity walls [17] .…”