A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: A randomized control study
- PMID: 30820090
- PMCID: PMC6385569
- DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18
A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: A randomized control study
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composites in Class II carious lesion.
Methodology: After ethical approval, patients were selected according to the inclusion-exclusion criteria with minimum of two carious lesions in a single patient. Lesions were randomly divided into two groups: Group A - nanohybrid composite and Group B - Activa™ bioactive composite. After administration of local anesthetic agent, Class II cavity preparation was done followed by rubber dam application. For deep lesion, pulp protection was done with light-cured calcium hydroxide. Then, the cavities were restored. Finishing and polishing were done. Evaluation of the restorations was done at 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year time interval by second-blinded examiner according to the modified USPHS criteria. The results of the study were tabulated, and statistical analysis was done.
Results: The results showed no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of nanohybrid composite and Activa™ bioactive composites in Class II carious lesions at the end of 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that both materials showed equal and acceptable clinical performance at the end of 1 year. Both materials can be successfully be used to restore Class II carious lesions.
Keywords: Activa™ bioactive composites; Class II lesion; clinical evaluation; nanohybrid composite.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
-
Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Bulk Fill Restoratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial.J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018 Nov-Dec;8(6):534-539. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_218_18. Epub 2018 Nov 29. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018. PMID: 30596045 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.J Adhes Dent. 2012 Aug;14(5):485-92. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a27794. J Adhes Dent. 2012. PMID: 22724113 Clinical Trial.
-
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 Apr-Jun;7(2):1-14. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2017. PMID: 29951462 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical evaluation of flowable resin composite versus conventional resin composite in carious and noncarious lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis.J Conserv Dent. 2017 Nov-Dec;20(6):380-385. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_226_17. J Conserv Dent. 2017. PMID: 29430087 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 9. J Dent. 2018. PMID: 29649506
Cited by
-
Phosphate Ion Release and Alkalizing Potential of Three Bioactive Dental Materials in Comparison with Composite Resin.Int J Dent. 2021 May 7;2021:5572569. doi: 10.1155/2021/5572569. eCollection 2021. Int J Dent. 2021. PMID: 34040643 Free PMC article.
-
Elemental analysis and micromorphological patterns of tooth/restoration interface of three ion-releasing class V restorations.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Oct 15;24(1):1221. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04944-w. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 39407219 Free PMC article.
-
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 Mar 11;2022:7932930. doi: 10.1155/2022/7932930. eCollection 2022. Int J Dent. 2022. PMID: 35310459 Free PMC article.
-
Fracture Load of Mesio-Occluso-Distal Composite Restorations Performed with Different Reinforcement Techniques: An In Vitro Study.Polymers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1358. doi: 10.3390/polym15061358. Polymers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36987139 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative clinical evaluation of correct anatomic contour and tight contact in Class II direct composite restoration using two newer contact forming instruments.J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024 Nov;27(11):1135-1140. doi: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_518_24. Epub 2024 Nov 11. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024. PMID: 39777381 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Agrawal VS, Parekh VV, Shah NC. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of silorane-based composite and nanohybrid composite with or without polyethylene fiber inserts in class II restorations: An in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2012;37:E1–7. - PubMed
-
- Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9:209–16. - PubMed
-
- Fortin D, Vargas MA. The spectrum of composites: New techniques and materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131(Suppl):26S–30S. - PubMed
-
- Arhun N, Celik C, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: Two-year results. Oper Dent. 2010;35:397–404. - PubMed
-
- Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in class I restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:532–7. - PubMed