Bioactive Resin Modified GIC vs. Conventional One in Vivo and in Vitro Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt.

2 Lecturer of Dental Biomaterial, Faculty of Dentistry, Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the bioactive resin modified GIC material (Activa) vs. conventional
one (Vitremer) clinically and laboratory.
Materials & Methods: Clinically: Fifteen healthy children of both sexes aged (4-7) having a
bilateral similar initial occlusal caries on the lower 2nd primary molars were selected. A split-mouth
design was used where conventional Class I cavities were prepared on carious molars. One side
was restored with Activa and the contra-lateral side restored with Vitremer (control). The patients
were recalled for clinical evaluation at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative. The modified United
States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria were used. Laboratory: included: 1.
Mechanical strength tests (compressive and diametral tensile). 2. Shear bond strength test between
both restorative materials and dentin. Statistical analysis: Mann Whitney test was used for clinical
evaluation, while t-test and ANOVA were used for laboratory evaluation. The significance level
was set at P ≤ 0.05.
Results: Clinically: The overall clinical outcome showed no significant difference between
both groups in all evaluated criteria (p>0.05). Laboratory: Activa showed higher values than Vitremer
in all tested groups and the differences were significant (p<0.05)
Conclusion: Activa recorded better scores than Vitremer in nearly all tested clinical criteria
but without significant differences between them during recall-time intervals. But, the laboratory
differences in all tested groups were significant.
 

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics