Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond strength to dentin of primary teeth—an in vitro study

Bhatia, Kunal; Nayak, Ramadas; Ginjupalli, Kishore

doi:10.22514/jocpd.2022.022

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concentration of calcium released from TempS10 was still lower than that of commercially available hybrid resin composite used for restoration (∼1–2 ppm, ACTIVA BioActive-Restorative, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) [ 45 , 46 ]. The concentration of all ions released was also lower than that observed with resin-based composite used in orthodontic adhesives in the previous studies [ 11 , 47 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro assessment of biaxial flexural strength, degree of monomer conversion, color stability, and ion release in provisional restorations containing Sr-bioactive glass nanoparticles

Padunglappisit,

Suwanprateep,

Chaiwerawattana

et al. 2023

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the mechanical and chemical properties of an experimental provisional restoration containing Sr-bioactive glass nanoparticles (Sr-BGNPs) compared to commercial provisional materials. The experimental material (TempS10) contained dimethacrylate monomers with added 10 wt% Sr-BGNPs. The degree of monomer conversion (DC) of self-curing ( n = 5), biaxial flexural strength (BFS)/modulus (BFM) ( n = 5), and color changes (ΔE* 00 ) of materials in red wine ( n = 5) were determined. Additionally, ion release (Ca, P, and Sr) in water at 2 weeks was examined ( n = 3). The commercial materials tested included polymethyl methacrylate-based provisional material (Unifast) and bis-acrylic materials (Protemp4 and Cooltemp). TempS10 exhibited a comparable degree of monomer conversion (49%) to that of Protemp4 (60%) and Cooltemp (54%) ( p > 0.05). The DC of Unifast (81%) was significantly higher than that of other materials ( p < 0.05). TempS10 showed a BFS (126 MPa) similar to Cooltemp (102 MPa) and Unifast (123 MPa), but lower than Protemp4 (194 MPa). The immersion time for 2 weeks exhibited no detrimental effect on the strength and modulus of all materials. The highest ΔE* 00 at 24 h and 2 weeks was observed with TempS10, followed by Cooltemp, Unifast, and Protemp4. Only TempS10 showed a detectable amount of Ca (0.69 ppm), P (0.12 ppm), and Sr (3.01 ppm). The experimental provisional resin restoration containing Sr-BGNPs demonstrated polymerization and strength comparable to those of bis-acryl provisional restorations but with the added benefit of ion-releasing properties. However, the experimental material demonstrated unsatisfactory color stability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro assessment of biaxial flexural strength, degree of monomer conversion, color stability, and ion release in provisional restorations containing Sr-bioactive glass nanoparticles

Padunglappisit,

Suwanprateep,

Chaiwerawattana

et al. 2023

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Glass ionomers cements (GIC) are also popular in paediatric dentistry for their simple application, fluoride release, and less moisture sensitivity [ 21 ]. On the other hand, they might have inferior mechanical properties, worse marginal adaptation, and a higher risk of restoration failure compared to RBC [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Banon,

Vandenbulcke,

Van Acker

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and radiographic success of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer in restoring class-II cavities of primary molars. Materials and methods A non-inferior split-mouth design was considered. A pre-calculated sample size of 96 molars (48 per group) with class-2 cavities of twenty-one children whose ages ranged from 5 to 10 years were randomly included in the trial. Pre-operative Plaque Index (PI), DMFT/dmft scores and the time required to fill the cavity were recorded. Over 24 months, the teeth were clinically evaluated every six months and radiographically every 12 months by two calibrated and blinded evaluators using the United States public health service (USPHS)-Ryge criteria. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in success rate was considered to assess non-inferiority, and the margin was set at -18%. The linear mixed model and Firth’s logistic regression model were used for data analysis (P < 0.05). Results After 24 months, 86 teeth (43 per group) were evaluated. The mean PI score was 1.1(± 0.9), while DMFT/dmft was 0.35 (± 0.74) and 6.55 (± 2.25) respectively. The clinical and radiographic success rate of Dyract vs. ACTIVA was 95.3% and 88.3% vs. 93% and 86%, respectively. The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in success rate (-2.3%) was − 3.2 to 1.3% and didn’t reach the predetermined margin of -18% which had been anticipated as the non-inferiority margin. Clinically, ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match (P = 0.002) but worse marginal discolouration (P = 0.0143). There were no significant differences regarding other clinical or radiographic criteria (P > 0.05). ACTIVA took significantly less placement time than Dyract, with a mean difference of 2.37 (± 0.63) minutes (P < 0.001). Conclusion The performance of ACTIVA was not inferior to Dyract and both materials had a comparable high clinical and radiographic performance in children with high-caries experience. ACTIVA had a significantly better colour match but more marginal discolouration. It took significantly less time to be placed in the oral cavity. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 May 2018 (#NCT03516838).

show abstract

Debonding forces of a bioactive material compared with those of resin-based and glass ionomer-based orthodontic adhesives

Swearingen,

Merwin,

McKay

et al. 2024

AJO-DO Clinical Companion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond strength to dentin of primary teeth—an in vitro study

Cited by 7 publications

References 34 publications

An in vitro assessment of biaxial flexural strength, degree of monomer conversion, color stability, and ion release in provisional restorations containing Sr-bioactive glass nanoparticles

An in vitro assessment of biaxial flexural strength, degree of monomer conversion, color stability, and ion release in provisional restorations containing Sr-bioactive glass nanoparticles

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Debonding forces of a bioactive material compared with those of resin-based and glass ionomer-based orthodontic adhesives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About