Predicta Bioactive Bulk as effective as 3M Filtek Bulk Fill in Class V Caries Restoration, Suggests Study
Written By : Medha Baranwal
Medically Reviewed By : Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2025-09-26 15:00 GMT | Update On 2025-09-26 15:00 GMT
Advertisement
India: Researchers have found in a new study that Predicta Bioactive Bulk and 3M Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative showed equivalent effectiveness for restoring class V caries in high-risk patients.
The randomized clinical trial, published in the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, compared the clinical performance of a bioactive composite resin with a conventional non-bioactive composite in individuals prone to frequent
Dr. Apeksha Rao and colleagues from the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vokkaligara Sangha Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, designed the investigation to address a persistent challenge in restorative dentistry—recurrent caries at the tooth–restoration interface. Materials that can either resist demineralization or encourage remineralization may extend the life of restorations, but clinical evidence supporting such bioactive products has remained limited.
The researchers recruited 20 adult patients identified as high caries risk, each presenting with symmetrical class V lesions on the buccal surfaces of posterior teeth. Using a split-mouth design, one side of each patient’s mouth was restored with Predicta Bioactive Bulk composite (Parkell™), while the opposite side received the non-bioactive 3M™ Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative. This method ensured that each participant served as their own control, improving the reliability of comparisons.
The key findings of the study were as follows:
- Follow-up assessments were carried out at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
- The Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria were used to evaluate marginal adaptation, marginal staining, fracture, and retention, and recurrence of initial pathology.
- Statistical analysis included the Chi-square test, the Cochran’s Q test, and the McNemar’s post-hoc test with a significance level of p < 0.05.
- Both restorative materials showed similar performance at all time points.
- No statistically significant differences were noted in marginal integrity, color stability, fracture resistance, or development of secondary caries.
- Patients tolerated both materials well throughout the study.
- Retention rates for both materials remained high over the 12 months.
The authors noted that while bioactive composites are engineered to release ions that may help neutralize acids and encourage remineralization, these theoretical advantages did not translate into measurable short-term clinical superiority over the conventional bulk-fill composite in this study. They emphasized that the trial’s relatively small sample size and limited follow-up period are important considerations. Longer-term monitoring of these patients is planned, and the team recommends larger studies with extended observation to determine whether differences might appear over time or in other types of carious lesions.
Despite these limitations, the findings provide valuable evidence for clinicians. Both Predicta Bioactive Bulk and 3M™ Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative can be considered reliable options for managing class V lesions in individuals at elevated risk for caries. By demonstrating comparable clinical outcomes, the study supports the continued use of either material based on factors such as practitioner preference, cost, and availability rather than expected differences in performance.
The research highlights that, at least within a one-year timeframe, the anticipated benefits of bioactive composites may not yield a clinical advantage in high-risk patients. Further investigations are needed to explore their potential in other clinical scenarios and over longer periods.
Reference:
Rao, Apeksha; Anithakumari, R.; Adarsha, M. S; Sudhanva, M. E; Vikram, R; Naveen Kumar, N. Clinical evaluation of bioactive composite resin in class V lesions in high-risk caries patients: A randomized split-mouth trial. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 28(9):p 905-910, September 2025. | DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_157_25
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.