CLINICAL PERFORMANCE OF BIOACTIVE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS VERSUS CONVENTIONAL COMPOSITE IN HIGH CARIES-RISK PATIENTS

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of bioactive restorative materials with conventional resin composite restorations in patients classified as high caries-risk over a 12-month follow-up period.

Methods: A randomized controlled clinical study was conducted on 120 posterior restorations placed in 60 high caries-risk patients. Each patient received two restorations: one with a bioactive restorative material (Group A) and one with a conventional resin composite (Group B). Clinical performance was evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria, assessing marginal integrity, surface texture, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, and overall restoration survival. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

Results: At 12 months, Group A demonstrated significantly lower incidence of secondary caries (5%) compared to Group B (16.7%) (p = 0.03). Marginal integrity was rated as Alpha in 86.7% of bioactive restorations versus 73.3% in composite restorations. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in 6.7% of Group A and 18.3% of Group B restorations. The overall survival rate was 95% for bioactive restorations and 86.7% for conventional composite restorations.

Conclusion: Bioactive restorative materials showed superior clinical performance compared to conventional composite in high caries-risk patients, particularly in reducing secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. These materials may be a preferable option for restorative management in patients with elevated caries susceptibility.