ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2022
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of Bioflx Crowns with Resinous and Nonresinous Luting Agents on Primary Teeth: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Can lasers replace conventional methods in optimizing bond strength of bioactive materials?Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Water Absorption and Solubility of Fluoride-Based Restorative Materials Exposed to Ionizing Radiation.Polymers · 2025Article
- Elemental and micromorphological analysis of ion releasing restoration/carious dentin interface.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ion Release, Microhardness and Enamel Demineralization Resistance of New Bioactive Restorative Materials.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Fluoride release and flexural strength of four ion-releasing restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Fracture resistance of postendodontic restoration using self-adhesive bioactive resin and a bulk-fill composite with or without resin-impregnated glass fibers: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Short-Term Fluoride Release from Ion- Releasing Dental Materials.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2023Article
- Microshear Bond Strength of Bioactive Materials to Dentin and Resin Composite.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2023Article
- Effect of Antibacterial Agents on Dentin Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Materials.Polymers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was (1) to determine and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a bioactive composite "Activa Bioactive Restorative" with and without bonding agent and a nanocomposite "Filtek Z350 XT/Z350" and (2) to measure and compare the amount of fluoride release from a bioactive composite "Activa Bioactive Restorative" and a glass ionomer "Equia forte". MATERIAL AND
methodsForty two dentin surfaces from freshly extracted human molars were prepared for shear bond strength testing. The specimens were randomly divided into three equal groups. The restorative materials were applied to all dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a special jig (Ultradent) in the following manner : Group 1 (Activa Bioactive Restorative with adhesive), Group 2 (Activa Bioactive Restorative without adhesive) and Group 3 (Filtek Z350 XT/Z350). The bonded specimens were subjected to thermocycling in 5°C and 55°C water baths then tested for SBS in a universal testing machine (1 mm/minute). Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests were used to evaluate the distribution of the variable and the equality of variances respectively and a Student's T- test was applied to compare the mean strength between the groups. In the next test, thirty disc shaped specimens were fabricated using Activa BioActive restorative and Equia Forte; 15 specimens from each material. The specimens of each group were immersed separately in 5 ml of deionized water. Fluoride release was measured daily throughout 15 days using a fluoride-specific ion electrode and an ion-analyzer. Repeated measures analysis of variance with one within-subject factor (time) and one between-subject factor (Activa Bioactive / Equia Forte) was applied to compare the amount of released fluoride between groups and within time. It was followed by univariate analyses and Bonferroni multiple comparisons tests.
resultsThe mean shear bond strength of Activa Bioactive Restorative with adhesive was found to be 17.379 (± 8.5043) MPa and 19.443(± 8.3293) MPa for the Filtek Z350 XT/Z350 group. There was no significant difference between both groups. Regarding fluoride release, the amount of Fluoride released was significantly greater in the Equia Forte group compared to the Activa Bioactive group (-
conclusionsActiva Bioactive Restorative with adhesive and a nanocomposite showed similar bond strengths. Activa Bioactive Restorative doesn't have the self-adhesive property. The fluoride ion release profile of Activa was lower than that of the Equia Forte.
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.