Dataset Information

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 (??=?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.

SUBMITTER: Benetti AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6964780 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material.

Benetti Ana Raquel AR Michou Stavroula S Larsen Liselotte L Peutzfeldt Anne A Pallesen Ulla U van Dijken Jan Willem Viator JWV

Biomaterial investigations in dentistry 20191212 1

<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 Mo ...[more]

PMID: 31998876

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA European Union amalgam phase-down has recently been implemented. Publicly funded health care predominates in the United Kingdom with the system favoring amalgam use. The current use of amalgam and its alternatives has not been fully investigated in the United Kingdom.ObjectivesThe study aimed to identify direct posterior restorative techniques, material use, and reported postoperative complication incidence experienced by primary care clinicians and differences between clinician groups.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary care clinicians through British dentist and therapist associations (11,092 invitations). The questionnaire sought information on current provision of direct posterior restorations and perceived issues with the different materials. Descriptive statistical and hypothesis testing was performed.ResultsDentists' response rate was 14% and therapists' estimated minimum response rate was 6% (total N = 1,513). The most commonly used restorative material was amalgam in molar teeth and composite in premolars. When placing a direct posterior mesio-occluso-distal restoration, clinicians booked on average 45% more time and charged 45% more when placing composite compared to amalgam (P < 0.0001). The reported incidences of food packing and sensitivity following the placement of direct restorations were much higher with composite than amalgam (P < 0.0001). Widely recommended techniques, such as sectional metal matrix use for posterior composites, were associated with reduced food packing (P < 0.0001) but increased time booked (P = 0.002).ConclusionAmalgam use is currently high in the publicly funded sector of UK primary care. Composite is the most used alternative, but it takes longer to place and is more costly. Composite also has a higher reported incidence of postoperative complications than amalgam, but time-consuming techniques, such as sectional matrix use, can mitigate against food packing, but their use is low. Therefore, major changes in health service structure and funding and posterior composite education are required in the United Kingdom and other countries where amalgam use is prevalent, as the amalgam phase-down continues.Knowledge transfer statementThis study presents data on the current provision of amalgam for posterior tooth restoration and its directly placed alternatives by primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, where publicly funded health care with copayment provision predominates. The information is important to manage and plan the UK phase-down and proposed phase-out of amalgam and will be of interest to other, primarily developing countries where amalgam provision predominates in understanding some of the challenges faced.

Dataset Information

Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material.

Publications

Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive, restorative material.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure