Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2023
Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Early Clinical Performance of Two Powder-Liquid Restoratives in Class-I/II Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Odontology · 2025Trial
- Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Adhesive Performance of Ion-Releasing Materials on Dentin with Altered Mineralization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Alkasite Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Bioactive and Ion-releasing materials in minimum intervention dentistry: a clinical pathway from prevention to restorative treatment.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Polishability and Microhardness of an Alkasite Restorative Material.Cureus · 2025Article
- Proposal of a Modular Classification System for Direct Dental Resin Composites Based on Clinical Applications.Polymers · 2025Review
- Surface properties of direct restorations and adjacent dental tissues after saliva exposure.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- Effects of Finishing on Surface Roughness of Four Different Glass-Ionomer Cements and One Alkasite: In Vitro Investigation over Time Using Aging Simulation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Alkasite restorative material for endodontically treated teeth: a randomized controlled pilot study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- Mechanical Properties of Alkasite Material with Different Curing Modes and Simulated Aging Conditions.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N and Its Comparison with Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) Restorative Material as Used in Primary Teeth.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- In vitro characterization of a novel resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis clinical study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive material by comparing it with a resin composite (RC) in the restoration of Class II cavities over a year. METHODOLOGY: A hundred Class II cavities were restored at 31 participants. Groups were as follows: Cention N (CN) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and G-ænial Posterior (GP) (GC, Tokyo, Japan) in combination with G-Premio Bond (etch&rinse). Restorative systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions. They were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored based on retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, and 12 months. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, McNemar's, and Kaplan Meier tests.
resultsAfter 12 months, the recall rate was 87%. Survival rates of CN and GP restorations were 92.5% and 97.7%, respectively. Three CN and one GP restorations lost retention. Seven CN (17.9%) and five (11.6%) GP restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation and no significant difference was seen between groups (p=0.363). One (2.7%) CN and two GP (4.7%) restorations were scored as bravo for marginal discoloration, but no significant difference was observed between groups(p=1.00). For surface texture, three (8.1%) CN and three (7%) GP restorations were scored as bravo (p=1.00). None of the restorations demonstrated post-operative sensitivity or secondary caries at any examinations.
conclusionThe tested restorative materials performed similar successful clinical performances after 12 months. ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC04825379).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.