English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Bioactive materials have emerged as a promising alternative to conventional restorative materials as part of more conservative dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of a new bioactive restorative material, two bulk-fill restorative composites, and a conventional composite at 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. Three hundred and sixty molars and premolars were divided into four groups: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE Restorative™, Filtek™ Bulk-Fill Restorative Composite, Tetric ® N-Ceram Bulk-Fill Composite, and G-aenial ® Composite. The normality of the data was determined with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, then the two-way ANOVA and Fisher's test were used for analyzing SBS data, and the Kruskal-Wallis and DSCF tests were conducted to analyze the microleakage. In the SBS test, there were no statistically significant differences between materials ( p = 0.587), and the relation between material and time ( p = 0.467), time points showed statistically significant differences ( p = 0.016). As for the microleakage, statistically significant differences were found for all three time periods ( p &lt; 0.05), showing the conventional composite to have the lowest microleakage, followed by the bioactive material, and lastly the two bulk-fill composites. In conclusion, the new bioactive material has similar evaluated properties to bulk-fill composites (bond strength) and conventional composites (bond strength and microleakage) and can be used as an alternative restorative material.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites—An In Vitro Study