Abstract
Aim: to clinically evaluate and compare the difference between nanohybrid composite (such as Tetric EvoCeram (TEC), Ivoclar-Vivadent) with Activa™ bioactive composite in Class V lesions after one year of their application to the affected teeth.
Material and methods: Thirty patients (20 males & 10 females aged 25- 45 years) each one with at least two NCCLs, participated in this study. Total of 60 restorations were done, each patient have a couple of ClassV restorations one restored with Nano hybrid composite ( Tetric EvoCeram (TEC), Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the other with Activa™ bioactive composite, class V being prepared by only one operator. The teeth were divided into two experimental groups as follows: Group 1 (n = 30) – Nano hybrid composite and Group 2 (n = 30) – Activa™ bioactive composite. The restorations were evaluated at 1 week (baseline), 6 months and 12 months after placement. The parameters of evaluation and comparison were deepened on modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.

Results: There was no statistical significant difference observed in the clinical performance of both Nano hybrid composite and Activa™ bioactive composite at 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year.

Conclusions: Both restorative materials , Nano hybrid composite and Activa™ bioactive composite after one year showed successful clinical performances for restoration of NCCL.