•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Background and Rationale: Failure of dental restorations due to secondary caries remains one of the common problems in restorative dentistry. In order to solve the shortcomings of conventional bioinert materials, bioactive composite resins have recently been developed, allowing fluoride, calcium, and phosphate ion delivery as well as reducing the acidic activity of biofilm.

Aim of the Review: This literature review evaluates chemistry, mechanisms of action, clinical effectiveness, and physical handling properties of resin-based bioactive materials used for direct posterior restoration in permanent dentition.

Material Categories Examined: This literature review includes such material categories as resin-modified glass ionomers, S-PRG-giomers (Surface Pre-reacted Glass Ionomer), alkasilicate materials like Cention N, ionomeric-resin hybrid materials (ACTIVA BioACTIVE), and experimental bioactive glass composites.

Main Results: Current meta-analytic evidence suggests that bioactive composites are associated with a relative reduction in secondary caries of approximately 40–45% compared with conventional resin composites (derived from pooled risk ratios across two recent meta-analyses), with the greatest absolute benefit observed in patients at moderate or high caries risk. Absolute risk reductions are more modest and vary by patient population. In terms of marginal adaptation, longevity, and postoperative sensitivity, bioactive composites demonstrate broadly equivalent performance to conventional composites within currently available follow-up periods, though operative placement time is marginally longer. These materials also provide acceptable aesthetic results, wear resistance, and remineralizing capacity.

Conclusion: Current evidence supports the use of bioactive composite resins as a clinically valuable, evidence-informed option, particularly in patients at elevated caries risk. Long-term randomized clinical studies beyond five years remain a priority for establishing definitive evidence on durability.

References

[1] Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Managing the phase-down of amalgam: part II. Implications for practising dentists. Br 180 MA'AEN JOURNAL FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES 2026;5:166—182 Dent J 2013;215(4):159—62. https://doi.org/10.1038/ sj.bdj.2013.811.

[2] Mackey TK, Contreras JT, Liang BA. The Minamata Convention on Mercury: attempting to address the global controversy of dental amalgam use and mercury waste disposal. Sci Total Environ 2014;472:125—9. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.115.

[3] Demarco FF, Correa ^ MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28(1): 87—101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003.

[4] Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Dent Res 2014;93(10):943—9. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022034514544217.

[5] Ferracane JL. Resin composite ― state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):29—38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020.

[6] Mjor € IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000;31(3):165—79.

[7] Askar H, Krois J, Go€stemeyer G, Bottenberg P, Zero D, Banerjee A, et al. Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed? Clin Oral Invest 2020; 24(5):1869—76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03268-7.

[8] Astvaldsd  ottir  A, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JWV, NaimiAkbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults ― a systematic review. J Dent 2015;43(8):934—54. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001.

[9] Pires PM, Neves AA, Makeeva IM, Schwendicke F, FausMatoses V, Yoshihara K, et al. Contemporary restorative ion-releasing materials: current status, interfacial properties and operative approaches. Br Dent J 2020;229(7):450—8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-2169-3.

[10] Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, Watts DC. Bioactive dental materials ― do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent Mater 2018;34(5):693—4. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.dental.2018.03.001.

[11] Khan AA. Self-healing dental biomaterials: bioinspired pathways to sustainable dentistry. Biomater Investig Dent 2025;12:45229. https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v12.45229.

[12] Reis A, Feitosa VP, Chibinski AC, Favoreto MW, Gutierrez MF, Loguercio AD. Biomimetic restorative dentistry: an evidence-based discussion of common myths. J Appl Oral Sci 2024;32:e20240271. https://doi.org/10.1590/ 1678-7757-2024-0271.

[13] Williams DF. Biocompatibility pathways and mechanisms for bioactive materials: the bioactivity zone. Bioact Mater 2022;10: 306—22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.08.014.

[14] Schwendicke F, Splieth C, Breschi L, Banerjee A, Fontana M, Paris S, et al. When to intervene in the caries process? An expert Delphi consensus statement. Clin Oral Invest 2019;23(10):3691—703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784- 019-03058-w.

[15] Almulhim KS, Syed MR, Alqahtani N, Alamoudi M, Khan M, Ahmed SZ, et al. Bioactive inorganic materials for dental applications: a narrative review. Materials 2022; 15(19):6864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196864.

[16] Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoridereleasing restorative materials ― fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):343—62. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022.

[17] Tay FR, Pashley DH. Biomimetic remineralization of resinbonded acid-etched dentin. J Dent Res 2009;88(8):719—24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509341826.

[18] Donly KJ, Liu JA. Dentin and enamel demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Z 100 and Cention N. Am J Dent 2018;31(3):166—8.

[19] Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, Cention N), in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(2):277—81. https://doi.org/10.4103/ ijdr.IJDR_481_17.

[20] Marsh PD. In sickness and in health ― what does the oral microbiome mean to us? An ecological perspective. Adv Dent Res 2018;29(1):60—5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517735295.

[21] Takahashi N, Nyvad B. The role of bacteria in the caries process: ecological perspectives. J Dent Res 2011;90(3): 294—303.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510379602.

[22] Fujimoto Y, Iwasa M, Murayama R, Miyazaki M, Nagafuji A, Nakatsuka T. Detection of ions released from S-PRG fillers and their modulation effect. Dent Mater J 2010;29(4):392—7. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2010-015.

[23] Toz-Akalin T, Oztürk-Bozkurt € F, Kusdemir M, Ozsoy € A, Yüzbas¸õoglu  E, Ozcan € M. Clinical evaluation of lowshrinkage bioactive material giomer versus nanohybrid resin composite restorations: a two-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Operat Dent 2023;48(1):10—20. https://doi.org/10.2341/21-097-C.

[24] Gomes-Filho JE, Silva LA, Cintra LTA, Ervolino E, Rocha CM, Bueno CRE, et al. Clinical efficacy of bioactive and smart restorative materials in preventing secondary caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials 2025;18(3):635. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18030635.

[25] Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, Dedania MS, Bajpai N. A 1- year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa bioactive composite in Class II carious lesions: a randomized control study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(1):92—6. https://doi.org/10.4103/ JCD.JCD_511_18.

[26] Pacheco RR, Carvalho AO, Andre CB, Ayres AP, Sampaio R, Bautista TR, et al. Effect of indirect restorative material and thickness on light transmission at different wavelengths. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(3):232—8. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpor.2018.12.005.

[27] Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb7030016.

[28] Ngo H. Glass-ionomer cements as restorative and preventive materials. Dent Clin 2010;54(3):551—63. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cden.2010.04.001.

[29] Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical approaches and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J 2008;27(3):315—39. https://doi.org/10.4012/ dmj.27.315.

[30] Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Cakir FY, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing materials. J Dent 2017;65:39—46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.001.

[31] Klauer E, Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Clinical performance of injectable flowable giomer in Class II restorations: a 24-month randomised clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2022; 26(5):3617—25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04332-6.

[32] François P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials 2020;13(10): 231—3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313.

[33] Iftikhar N, Devashish Srivastava B, Gupta N, Ghambir N, Singh Rashi. A comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of four different restorative materials: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(1):47—9. https:// doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592.

[34] Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: a resinmodified glass-ionomer bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Comp Cont Educ Dent 2015;36(1):60—5.

[35] Banon R, Vandenbulcke J, Van Acker J, Martens L, De Coster P, Rajasekharan S. Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2024;24(1):437. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04132-w.

[36] May E, Donly KJ. Fluoride release and re-release from a bioactive restorative material. Am J Dent 2017;30(6): 305—8. . 36.

[37] Khvostenko D, Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL, Mitchell JC, Kruzic JJ. Bioactive glass fillers reduce bacterial penetration into marginal gaps for composite restorations. Dent Mater 2016;32(1): 73—81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.007.

[38] Tiskaya M, Shahid S, Gillam D, Hill RG. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: a critical review. Dent Mater 2021;37(2):296—310. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.dental.2020.11.015.

[39] Martínez-Sabio L, Penate ~ L, Arregui M, Veloso A, Gispert M, Mercade  M. Effectiveness of bioactive resin materials in preventing secondary caries and retention loss in direct posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2024;151:105392. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105392.

[40] Pereira AH, da Silva ME, de Oliveira A, Fernandes AC, Roosevelt SA, Souza B. Antimicrobial potential and clinical performance of bioactive resin composites in caries management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Front Oral Health 2025;6:1625977. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/froh.2025.1625977.

[41] Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Cavalleri A. Microleakage of Class II restorations with different tracers ― comparison with SEM quantitative analysis. J Adhesive Dent 2008;10(4): 259—67. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a13598.

[42] Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhesive Dent 2020;22(1):7—34. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43994.

[43] Price RB, Ferracane JL, Shortall AC. Light-curing units: a review of what we need to know. J Dent Res 2015;94(9): 1179—86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515594786.

[44] Chen L, Suh BI, Yang J, Kim S, Lee IB. Antibacterial dental restorative materials: a state-of-the-art review. J Dent 2021; 105:103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103569.

Download

Share

COinS