Pracheth T V, Pai Veena S, Vedavathi B, Girish Priyanka, Sujith R, Bhaskar Abijeth, Mazumdar Payel
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, ESIC Dental College and Hospital, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, The Oxford Dental College & Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Nov;17(11):1272-1276. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2958. Epub 2024 Dec 19.
To compare the microleakage in class V cavities restored with Activa Bioactive Restorative, Activa Pronto, and nanohybrid composite.
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 ( = 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.
One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's analysis was performed to compare the mean microleakage scores between the three groups.
There was a statistically significant difference ( < 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.
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.
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.
V PT, Pai VS, B V, 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.
比较使用Activa生物活性修复材料、Activa Pronto和纳米混合复合树脂修复Ⅴ类洞的微渗漏情况。
在60颗完整拔除的上颌前磨牙颊面制备标准化Ⅴ类洞（近远中径：3mm；咬合龈向：2mm；轴壁深度：1mm）。根据使用的修复材料，将制备的洞分为三个实验组（每组n = 20）。第一组：纳米混合复合树脂，第二组：Activa生物活性修复材料，第三组：Activa Pronto。样本进行抛光处理，并在5 - 55℃下进行热循环，保持时间为60秒，循环1000次。根尖用粘性蜡密封，并在距修复边缘1mm处涂两层指甲油。将牙齿样本置于2%的亚甲蓝中24小时，冲洗后采用染料提取法处理。将牙齿样本置于含有1mL浓硝酸（65%重量）的试管中3天。试管以14000转/分钟的速度离心5分钟，将每个样本的100μL上清液转移至平板中。使用浓硝酸作为空白对照，通过自动紫外分光光度计在550nm处测量染料吸收值。
采用单因素方差分析，随后进行Tukey检验，以比较三组之间的平均微渗漏评分。
Activa Pronto（0.024±0.002）、Activa生物活性修复材料（0.045±0.003）和纳米混合复合树脂材料（0.069±0.003）之间的平均微渗漏评分存在统计学显著差异（P < 0.001）。与纳米混合复合树脂组和Activa生物活性修复材料组相比，Activa Pronto组（0.024±0.002）的微渗漏值最低。
由于Activa Pronto和Activa生物活性修复材料具有生物活性特性和更好的美观性，尤其是在Ⅴ类洞中，可考虑作为常规使用的纳米混合复合树脂的替代品。
根据我们的研究结果以及文献中的发现，很明显，与传统使用纳米混合复合树脂相比，新型生物活性修复材料Activa Pronto和Activa生物活性修复材料在Ⅴ类洞中显示出显著更低的微渗漏。
V PT, Pai VS, B V, 新型生物活性修复材料修复Ⅴ类洞微渗漏的比较评价：Activa生物活性修复材料和Activa Pronto。《国际临床儿科牙科学杂志》2024；17(11):1272 - 1276。
