ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine caries inhibition potential of conventional and bulk-fill bioactive composites around restorations. METHODS: Enamel and dentin blocks were prepared using a diamond saw under water irrigation, finished (SiC, 600- and 800-grit) and polished (SiC 1,200, final polish= 0.2 µm). Blocks were then selected through enamel surface microhardness, and enamel and dentin standard cavities were restored (n=10/group) with conventional bioactive composite (Beautifil II, BTF), bulk-fill bioactive composite (Activa BioACTIVE, ACT), glass-ionomer cement (Ionofil Plus, ION), conventional composite (GrandioSO, GSO), and bulk-fill composite (Admira Fusion X-TRA, ADM). Afterwards, the blocks were subjected to pH cycling: 4 hours in demineralization and 20 hours in remineralization solutions for 7 days, before being cut in the middle. One half was used to calculate the carious lesion area (ΔS) using values obtained by cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) testing. The other half was submitted to polarized light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The % of internal gap formation (GAP) of restorations' replicas were analyzed under SEM. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (α= 5%). RESULTS: In terms of CSMH, ION group exhibited the lowest ΔS values, with no significant difference to ADM. The composites BTF and ACT were similar to each other (P< 0.05) and to their negative controls (GSO and ADM), respectively. ION showed lower caries formation under PLM, whereas the GSO group presented a greater demineralized area. ION presented the highest % of internal GAP formation. Bioactive composites (BTF and ACT) were similar to their corresponding conventional ones (GSO and ADM) in terms of GAP formation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The glass-ionomer cement was more effective in inhibiting the formation of caries lesions around restorations. Because of the glass-ionomer cement's limited application in high load-bearing areas, the conventional bioactive composite would be a promising clinical choice.