الفهرس 
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 155 |  |  |
| | | from | 155 | | |
Abstract
Aim or purpose: This study aims to evaluate the remineralization potential of ACTIVA Bioactive restorative material compared to light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restorative.
Materials and methods: A standardized Class V cavity was prepared in forty-two extracted sound human premolars. The mineral content of the teeth was measured before and after demineralization, then the demineralized teeth were left as a negative control (group I) or restored with either ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material (group II) or light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restorative (group III). The teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 23 h and 1h in lactic acid solution at 37˚C to simulate the oral environment and the acid challenges occurring intraorally. The mineral content was evaluated using energy dispersive x-ray and scanning electron microscope (EDX/SEM) in each group after 24 h, 1month later, and after three months. Results: A significant statistical difference in fluoride and calcium release between the two groups was observed. Light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restoration showed higher release of fluoride compared to ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material while ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material showed higher release of calcium compared to the light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer. There was no statistical difference in phosphorus release between the two tested materials. Phosphorus content was relatively similar in both groups. Conclusions: Resin modified glass ionomer materials exhibit greater fluoride release than resin-based materials ACTIVIA Bioactive-Restorative with the highest fluoride release taking place during the first 24 hours. ACTIVA Bioactive-Restorative could be considered a suitable class V restoration in high caries risk patients.