Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material

Ana Raquel Benetti,Stavroula Michou,Liselotte Larsen,Anne Peutzfeldt,Ulla Pallesen,Jan Willem Viator van Dijken

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2019.1696202

2019-12-12

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

Abstract:<b>Objectives:</b> 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). <b>Material and Methods:</b> 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 (<i>α</i> = 0.05). <b>Results:</b> Bond strength and marginal adaptation in enamel and dentine were significantly different among the investigated materials (<i>p</i>&lt;.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. <b>Conclusion:</b> The self-adhesive property of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is nonexistent.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problem does this paper attempt to solve?

This paper aims to study the performance of a restorative material claimed to be bio - active (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative) in terms of adhesiveness and marginal adaptation in vitro compared with two control materials (resin - modified glass ionomer cement Fuji II LC and resin composite Ceram X Mono). Specifically, the study focuses on the following aspects:

1. **Adhesiveness**:
- Compare the shear bond strength of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative under different pretreatment conditions, including no pretreatment, using phosphoric acid etching or self - adhesive.
- Evaluate its adhesive performance to enamel and dentin.

2. **Marginal adaptation**:
- Study the adaptation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative to the enamel and dentin margins under different pretreatment conditions.
- Analyze the changes in marginal shrinkage after thermal cycling and long - term storage.

3. **Volumetric shrinkage**:
- Measure the polymerization shrinkage of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative and compare it with the other two materials.

### Background and motivation

Although resin composites have many advantages in dental applications and are constantly being improved, there are still some limitations, such as insufficient adhesiveness and marginal sealing. In recent years, some new intelligent restorative materials have emerged, claiming to have bio - activity and self - adhesive properties. ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is one of them. The manufacturer claims that it has a "rubberized resin" enhancement function and can provide good mechanical properties and bio - activity. However, clinical and laboratory studies have found that the actual performance of this material may not be in line with its publicity, especially in terms of adhesiveness and marginal adaptation. Therefore, this study aims to verify the performance of these materials through a strict experimental design and provide a scientific basis for clinical applications.

### Main findings

- **Adhesiveness**: When not pretreated or only using phosphoric acid etching, the adhesiveness of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is poor, resulting in the detachment of restorations. Only when using a self - adhesive is its adhesive performance comparable to that of resin composites.

- **Marginal adaptation**: The marginal shrinkage of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative on enamel is large, especially without pretreatment. After thermal cycling and long - term storage, the marginal adaptation is further deteriorated.

- **Volumetric shrinkage**: The volumetric shrinkage of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is significantly higher than that of the other two materials, which may lead to greater marginal gaps and micro - leakage risks.

### Conclusion

This study shows that the self - adhesive properties of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative are not as reliable as claimed by the manufacturer. To ensure good adhesiveness and marginal adaptation, it is recommended to use this material in combination with a self - adhesive. In addition, the research results emphasize the importance of comprehensive testing before new materials are launched on the market to ensure that their performance is in line with the publicity and meets clinical needs.

---

I hope the above summary can help you understand the main research content and conclusions of this paper. If you have more questions or need further information, please feel free to let me know!