BIOACTIVE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS: THEIR ROLE IN PREVENTING SECONDARY CARIES BENEATH COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Bioactive liners, composite restorations, secondary caries, restoration survival, calcium silicate, glass ionomer.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of bioactive liners on the development of secondary caries and the survival of composite restorations.
Methodology: A prospective clinical study was conducted at Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan from January 2024 to January 2025 on 72 patients requiring Class I and II composite restorations. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A (composite with bioactive liner) and Group B (composite without liner). Restorations were placed using standardized adhesive protocols and evaluated clinically and radiographically at 6, 12, and 24 months. The main outcome measure was the presence of secondary caries; restoration survival was assessed as a secondary outcome. Data were analyzed using Chi-square tests and survival analysis, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: Secondary caries was observed in 16.7% of restorations in the liner group compared with 41.7% in the control group (p = 0.017). Survival rates were significantly higher in the liner group at 12 months (94.4% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.048) and at 24 months (88.9% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.039). No significant differences were noted at 6 months.
Conclusion: Bioactive liners significantly reduce the risk of secondary caries and improve the long-term survival of composite restorations. Their clinical use is particularly beneficial in moderate to deep cavities where the risk of recurrent caries is higher.
References
2. Firoozmand, L., Y. Alania, and A.J.O.D. Bedran-Russo, Development and assessment of bioactive coatings for the prevention of recurrent caries around resin composite restorations. 2022. 47(3): p. E152-E161.
3. Ahmed, B., et al., 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials. 2024. 14(1): p. 4942.
4. Elgezawi, M., et al., Current strategies to control recurrent and residual caries with resin composite restorations: operator-and material-related factors. 2022. 11(21): p. 6591.
5. Alostad, M., Biofilm growth inhibition on novel Polylysine and Monocalcium phosphate containing dental composites. 2020, UCL (University College London).
6. Jaiswal, M., Comparative Evaluation of the Demineralization Inhibition Potential of Bioactive Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: An in Vitro Study. 2020, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India).
7. Foxton, R.M.J.J.D.S.R., Current perspectives on dental adhesion:(2) Concepts for operatively managing carious lesions extending into dentine using bioactive and adhesive direct restorative materials. 2020. 56(1): p. 208-215.
8. Sajjan, G.S., et al., Evaluation of the Effect of Bioactive Varnish Application on the Marginal Micro Gap of Class II Composite Restoration: SEM Analysis. 2023. 14(9): p. 772-776.
9. Pires, P.M., et al., Contemporary restorative ion-releasing materials: Current status, interfacial properties and operative approaches. 2020. 229(7): p. 450-458.
10. Neves, P., et al., Evaluation of microleakage of a new bioactive material for restoration of posterior teeth: An in vitro radioactive model. 2022. 12(22): p. 11827.
11. Abdel-Maksoud, H.B., et al., Evaluation of newly introduced Bioactive materials in terms of Cavity Floor Adaptation: OCT study. 2021. 14(24): p. 7668.
12. Özcan, M., L.d.F.R. Garcia, and C.A.M.J.F.i.D.M. Volpato, Bioactive materials for direct and indirect restorations: concepts and applications. 2021. 2: p. 647267.
13. El-Gaaly, A.N., R.R. Hassan, and O.O.J.A.D.J. Shaalan, Clinical evaluation of new bioactive restorative material versus resin modified glass ionomer in restoration of cervical carious lesions: Randomized clinical trial. 2024. 6(2): p. 339-349.
14. Slimani, A., et al., Commercially available ion-releasing dental materials and cavitated carious lesions: clinical treatment options. 2021. 14(21): p. 6272.
15. Nassar, A., et al., Clinical evaluation of different bioactive dental restorative materials. 2020. 4(4): p. 1124-42.
16. Saliakelli, D., The effect of monocalcium phosphate and polylysine on SMART composite self-bonding to dentine. 2020, UCL (University College London).
17. Oz, F.D., E. Meral, and S.J.J.o.A.O.S. Gurgan, Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial. 2023. 31: p. e20230025.
18. Yaghmoor, R.B., In vitro Evaluation of Novel Antibacterial Dental Composites. 2022, UCL (University College London).
19. Bishnoi, N., et al., Evaluating the marginal seal of a bioactive restorative material activa bioactive and two bulk fill composites in class II restorations: an in vitro study. 2020. 6(3): p. 98-102.
20. Sh Ibrahim, H. and R. A Al-Askary, Marginal leakage evaluation of bioactive bulkfill restorative materials in class II cavities: An in vitro comparative study. 2023.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Muhammad Naeem
Associate Professor, Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan, Pakistan
Raham Zaman
Associate Professor, Department of Science of Dental Materials, Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan, Pakistan.
Sawaira
Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontology, Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan, Pakistan
Muhammad Yousaf
Assistant Professor, Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Bacha Khan Dental College Mardan, Pakistan
Sajila Raziq
Demonstrator, Department of Science of Dental Materials, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Pakistan
Farhan Dil
Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Biology, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan