Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond strength to dentin of primary teeth—an in vitro study

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the release of calcium ions from a bioactive restorative material and its shear bond strength (SBS) to primary dentin. Study design: Occlusal surface of extracted non-carious primary molars were flattened, onto which 2 × 2 mm cylinders of ACTIVA™ BioActive Restorative (PULPDENT® Corporation, Watertown MA) or Fuji II LC (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were prepared using a polypropylene straw mould. SBS of the materials to primary dentin was tested using a universal testing machine. The mode of bond failure was assessed using stereomicroscopy. 10 mm × 2 mm disks of each material were prepared and immersed in Milli-Q water for 1, 7, 14 and 21 days. The released calcium ions in the immersion media were quantified using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy. Results: ACTIVA™ BioActive Restorative showed a mean SBS of 4.29 ± 0.65 MPa to primary dentin and calcium ion release of 0.76 ± 0.12 ppm over 21 days. Conclusion: ACTIVA™ BioActive Restorative showed a significantly higher mean SBS to primary dentin, and significantly higher calcium ion release compared to Fuji II LC.

BioActive; Calcium ion release; Primary teeth; Shear bond strength

1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass ionomer cement. British Dental Journal. 1972; 132: 133–135.

2. Castro A, Feigal RE. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatric Dentistry. 2002; 24: 23–28.

3. Mathis RS, Ferracane JL. Properties of a glass-ionomer/resin-composite hybrid material. Dental Materials. 1989; 5: 355–358.

4. Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatric Dentistry. 2022; 24: 423–429.

5. The Future of Dentistry Now in Your Hands. PULPDENT®: Watertown. 2014.

6. Pameijer CH, Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow BR, Jefferies SR. Flexural strength and flexural fatigue properties of resin-modified glass ionomers. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 2015; 26: 23–27.

7. Bansal R, Burgess J, Lawson NC. Wear of an enhanced resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material. American Journal of Dentistry. 2016; 29: 171–174.

8. May E, Donly KJ. Fluoride release and re-release from a bioactive restorative material. American Journal of Dentistry. 2017; 30: 305–308.

9. Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2018; 19: 13–19.

10. Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. General Dentistry. 2018; 66: 32–36.

11. Kokubo T, Kushitani H, Sakka S, Kitsugi T, Yamamuro T. Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W3. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 1990; 24: 721–734.

12. Jefferies SR. Bioactive and biomimetic restorative materials: a comprehensive review. Part I. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2014; 26: 14–26.

13. Goldberg M, Lacerda-Pinheiro S, Jegat N, Six N, Septier D, Priam F, et al. The impact of bioactive molecules to stimulate tooth repair and regeneration as part of restorative dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America. 2006; 50: 277–298.

14. Van Duinen RN, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamel-like material. American Journal of Dentistry. 2004; 17: 223–227.

15. Tiskaya M, Al-eesa NA, Wong FSL, Hill RG. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dental Materials. 2019; 35: 1757–1768.

16. Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: a resinmodified glass-ionomer bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. 2015; 36: 60–65.

17. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U, Benetti A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modi-fied glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dental Materials. 2019; 35: 335–343.

18. Alkhudhairy F, Vohra F, Naseem M, Ahmad ZH. Adhesive bond integrity of dentin conditioned by photobiomodulation and bonded to bioactive restorative material. Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy. 2019; 28: 110–113.

19. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. Journal of Dentistry. 2018; 15: 205–213.

20. Saghiri MA, Shabani A, Asatourian A, Sheibani N. Storage medium affects the surface porosity of dental cements. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017; 11: ZC116–ZC119.

21. Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin. Dental Materials. 2002; 18: 239–245.

22. Faria-e-Silva AL, Silva JL, Almeida TG, Veloso FB, Ribeiro SM, Andrade TD, et al. Effect of acid etching time and technique on bond strength of an etch-and-rinse adhesive. Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana. 2011; 24: 75–80.

23. Wang Y, Spencer P. Effect of acid etching time and technique on interfacial characteristics of the adhesive-dentin bond using differential staining. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2004; 112: 293–299.

24. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. Elsevier/Saunders: USA. 2013.

25. Hamama H, Burrow M, Yiu C. Effect of dentine conditioning on adhesion of resin-modified glass ionomer adhesives. Australian Dental Journal. 2014; 59: 193–200.

26. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dental Materials Journal. 2018; 37: 293–300.

27. Porenczuk A, Jankiewicz B, Naurecka M, Bartosewicz B, Sierakowski B, Gozdowski D, et al. A comparison of the remineralizing potential of dental restorative materials by analyzing their fluoride release profiles. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2019; 28: 815–823.

28. Di Nicoló R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP. Bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and dentin conditioning. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2007; 15: 459–464.

29. Cardoso MV, Delmé KIM, Mine A, Neves ADA, Coutinho E, De Moor RJG, et al. Towards a better understanding of the adhesion mechanism of resin-modified glass-ionomers by bonding to differently prepared dentin. Journal of Dentistry. 2010; 38: 921–929.

30. El-Askary FS, Nassif MS. The effect of the pre-conditioning step on the shear bond strength of nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer to dentin. European Journal of Dentistry. 2011; 5: 150–156.

31. Bayrak S, Sen Tunc E, Tuloglu N. The effects of surface pretreatment on the microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations. The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012; 36: 279–284.

32. Raskin A, Eschrich G, Dejou J, About I. In vitro microleakage of Biodentine as a dentin substitute compared to Fuji II LC in cervical lining restorations. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2012; 14: 535–542.

33. Simi B, Suprabha BS. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2011; 14: 178–181.

34. Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore A. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2014; 5: 373–377.

35. Mirzaie M, Yasini E, Kermanshah H, Omidi BR. The effect of mechanical load cycling and polishing time on microleakage of class V glass-ionomer and composite restorations: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Dental Research Journal. 2014; 11: 100–108.

36. Doozandeh M, Shafiei F, Alavi M. Microleakage of three types of glass ionomer cement restorations: effect of CPP-ACP paste tooth pretreatment. Journal of Dentistry. 2015; 16: 182–188.

37. Shafiei F, Yousefipour B, Farhadpour H. Marginal microleakage of a resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration: Interaction effect of delayed light activation and surface pretreatment. Dental Research Journal. 2015; 12: 224–230.

38. Dinakaran S. Evaluation of the effect of different food media on the marginal integrity of class V compomer, conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations: an in vitro study. Journal of International Oral Health. 2015; 7: 53–58.

39. Kimyai S, Pournaghi-Azar F, Daneshpooy M, Kahnamoii MA, Davoodi F. Effect of two prophylaxis methods on marginal gap of Cl V resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2016; 10: 23–29.

40. Križnar I, Seme K, Fidler A. Bacterial microleakage of temporary filling materials used for endodontic access cavity sealing. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2016; 11: 394–400.

41. Hasani Z, Khodadadi E, Ezoji F, Khafri S. Effect of Mechanical Load Cycling on Microleakage of Restorative Glass Ionomers Compared to Flowable Composite Resin in Class V Cavities. Frontiers in Dentistry. 2019; 16: 136–143.

42. Çelik Ç, Bayraktar Y, Esra Özdemir B. Effect of saliva contamination on microleakage of open sandwich restorations. Acta Stomatologica Croatica. 2020; 54: 273–282.

43. Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials. 2020; 13: 2313.

44. Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, Watts DC. Bioactive dental materials-do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dental Materials. 2018; 34: 693–694.

45. Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2010; 20: 1–7.

46. Kaushik M, Yadav M. Marginal microleakage properties of AC- TIVA bioactive restorative and nanohybrid composite resin using two different adhesives in non carious cervical lesions-an in vitro study. Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2017; 7: 1–14.

47. Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LHA, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dental Materials. 2010; 26: e50–e62.

48. Braga RR, Meira JBC, Boaro LCC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods. Dental Materials. 2010; 26: e38–e49.

49. Koutroulis A, Kuehne SA, Cooper PR, Camilleri J. The role of calcium ion release on biocompatibility and antimicrobial properties of hydraulic cements. Scientific Reports. 2019; 9: 19019.

50. Pacifici E, Chazine M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Shear-bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable restorative material to dentin of primary molars. The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2013; 38: 149–154.

51. Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin. Dental Materials. 2002; 18: 239–245.

52. Chowdhary N, Reddy SV. Dentin comparison in primary and permanent molars under transmitted and polarised light microscopy: an in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2010; 28: 167–172.

53. Courson F, Bouter D, Ruse ND, Degrange M. Bond strengths of nine current dentine adhesive systems to primary and permanent teeth. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2005; 32: 296–303.

54. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GK. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 9: 192–196.

55. Sutil BGDS, Susin AH. Dentin pretreatment and adhesive temperature as affecting factors on bond strength of a universal adhesive system. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2017; 25: 533–540.

56. Abdelmegid F, Salama F, Albogami N, Albabtain M, Alqahtani A. Shear bond strength of different dentin substitute restorative materials to dentin of primary teeth. Dental Materials Journal. 2016; 35: 782–787.