A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Activatm Bioactive, Smart Dentin Replacement, Cention N and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement In Class V Cavities – an in Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67440/ahj.v21i6s.1851Keywords:
ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE demonstrated the least microleakage and superior marginal sealing ability, suggesting its potential as a reliable restorative material for Class V cavities.Abstract
Context: Microleakage at the tooth–restoration interface may cause postoperative sensitivity, recurrent caries, and restoration failure. Newer bioactive restorative materials have been developed to improve marginal sealing.
Aims: To compare the microleakage of ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE, Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR), Cention N, and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) in Class V cavities.
Materials and Methods: Forty-eight extracted human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n=12) and restored with Conventional GIC, ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE, SDR, or Cention N. After thermocycling and mechanical loading, specimens were coated with nail varnish, immersed in 2% Rhodamine B dye for 24 hours, sectioned buccolingually, and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30× magnification.
Statistical Analysis: Microleakage scores were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Dwass–Steel–Critchlow–Fligner post hoc test (p < 0.05).
Results: Mean microleakage scores were 2.83 ± 0.39 for Conventional GIC, 0.58 ± 0.67 for ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE, 1.75 ± 0.75 for SDR, and 1.33 ± 0.78 for Cention N. Significant differences were observed among the groups (p = 0.0005). ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE exhibited the lowest microleakage, whereas Conventional GIC showed the highest. No significant difference was observed between SDR and Cention N.
Conclusion: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE exhibited the least microleakage and superior marginal sealing ability among the materials tested.
