ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2022
Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Can lasers replace conventional methods in optimizing bond strength of bioactive materials?Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Shear Bond Strength of Biointeractive Restorative Materials to NeoMTA Plus and Biodentine.Polymers · 2025Article
- Advances in Bioactive Dental Adhesives for Caries Prevention: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Elemental and micromorphological analysis of ion releasing restoration/carious dentin interface.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- The role of protective liners and glass ionomer in managing pulp temperature during light curing.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2023Article
- A novel application of a bioactive material as a pit and fissure sealant: in vitro pilot study evaluating the sealing ability and penetration.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Article
- Evaluation of One- and Two-Step Impression Techniques and Vertical Marginal Misfit in Fixed Prothesis.International journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
- Adhesive Bond Integrity of Experimental Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Incorporated Dentin Adhesive: An SEM, EDX,Scanning · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the enamel and dentin marginal microleakage and dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative with and without a bonding agent compared with conventional restorative materials. MATERIAL AND
methodsFor enamel and dentin microleakage, Class II boxes were prepared in the mesial (1 mm under the cementoenamel junction) and distal (1 mm above the cementoenamel junction) surfaces of 90 extracted human third molars. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n = 18): Group Z (G-Premio Bond + Filtek Z250 XT), Group X (G-Premio Bond + X-tra fil bulk-fill), Group AA (G-Premio Bond + Activa Bioactive restorative), Group A (Activa Bioactive restorative), and Group G (dentin conditioner + Fuji II LC Improve). The teeth were thermocycled, and their microleakage was quantified using the dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope. For dentin μTBS measurement, 12 specimens were fabricated in metal molds (1 × 1 × 12 mm³) for each group mentioned above, and a universal testing machine measured their μTBS. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple comparisons tests.
resultsSignificant differences were noted among the groups in marginal microleakage and μTBS (p < .001). The highest mean microleakage scores at the enamel and dentin margins were noted in Group A, which had significant differences with other groups (p < .001). The highest μTBS was found in Group X, with significant differences with Group G and Group A (p < .05). The lowest µTBS was noted in Group A, with significant differences with Groups X, Group AA, and Group Z (p < .001).
conclusionsActiva Bioactive without a bonding agent showed significantly lower µTBS to dentin, and higher microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins. Application of adhesive resin with Activa Bioactive provided a dentine bond strength and marginal seal comparable to other restorative materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.