Class II Restoration Using Bioactive Restorative Material vs Polyacid Modified Composite Resin in Primary Molars

1. Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between using ACTIVA and Dyract® in children to restore Class II cavities in carious vital primary second molars. 2. Trial design: ‐ A pilot study, parallel group, two arm. ‐ Allocation ratio is 1:1. 3. Method Intervention: A) Diagnosis: ‐ Diagnostic chart will be filled with personal, medical and dental history. ‐ The intra��oral examination will be made using gloves, mask, gauze and dental mirror. ‐ A pre‐operative radiograph (bitewing) will be taken for diagnosis. b) The intervention in this pilot study will be (ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE, Pulpdent, USA) ‐ Gp1 while the comparator will be (Dyract® DENTSPLY, Germany)‐ Gp2. Three follow up visits for restoration at: T1 (3 months), T2 (6 months) and T3 (12 months). Same procedure in both groups will be followed: 1. The tooth will be anesthetized using local anesthesia, and isolated using rubber dam. 2. Caries will be removed. 3. A proximal box is prepared. 4. A metal matrix band is fixed around the tooth and a wedge is placed interdentally. 5. The restorative material chosen according to the randomization is placed in the cavity according to the manufacturer's instructions. 6. A post‐operative digital bitewing radiograph will be taken immediately after the treatment as a base line reference and to check for voids or any defect in the restoration.