Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto.

Aim: To compare the microleakage in class V cavities restored with Activa Bioactive Restorative, Activa Pronto, and nanohybrid composite.

Materials and methods: Standardized class V cavity preparations (mesiodistal: 3 mm; occlusocervical: 2 mm; axial depth: 1 mm) were made on the buccal surface of 60 extracted intact maxillary premolar teeth. The preparations were divided into three experimental groups (n = 20) depending on the restorative material used. Group I: Nanohybrid composite resin, group II: Activa Bioactive Restorative, and group III: Activa Pronto. Samples were polished and thermocycled at 5-55 °C with a dwell time of 60 seconds for 1,000 cycles.The apices were sealed with sticky wax and two coats of nail varnish applied 1 mm away from the restorative margins. Teeth samples were placed in 2% of methylene blue for 24 hours washed and processed for dye extraction method. Teeth samples were placed in a test tube containing 1 mL of concentrated nitric acid (65%wt) for 3 days. Test tubes were centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 5 minutes, and 100 µL of the supernatant from each was transferred to a plate. The dye absorption was measured by an automated UV spectrophotometer at 550 nm using concentrated nitric acid as the blank.

Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis was performed to compare the mean microleakage scores between the three groups.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in mean microleakage scores between Activa Pronto (0.024 ± 0.002), Activa Bioactive Restoratives (0.045 ± 0.003), and nanohybrid composite resin materials (0.069 ± 0.003). The Activa Pronto group (0.024 ± 0.002) showed least microleakage values as compared to nanohybrid composite resin and Activa Bioactive Restorative group.

Conclusion: Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restorative materials may be considered as replacement to the routinely used nanohybrid composites especially in class V cavities due to their bioactive properties and better esthetics.

Clinical significance: Based on the results of our study and that found in the literature, it is evident that newer bioactive restorative materials, Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restoratives showed significantly less microleakage in class Vcavities when compared to conventionally used nanohybrid composite resins.

How to cite this article: V PT, Pai VS, B V, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(11):1272-1276.