ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2024
Alkasite restorative material for endodontically treated teeth: a randomized controlled pilot study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Alkasite Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bioactive Alkasite Compared to Other Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of an alkasite restorative material in molars that had undergone root canal treatment. Materials and Methods: The research was registered in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials. The randomized clinical trial involved 33 patients, each with at least 1 mandibular molar requiring restoration after receiving endodontic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent) or the alkasite restorative material (Cention N, Ivoclar Vivadent). Upon completion of the restorations, 3 calibrated professionals utilized the United States Public Health Service criteria to assess various factors, including retention, secondary caries, marginal adaptation, restoration color, marginal pigmentation, and anatomical form. Evaluations were conducted at intervals of 7 days, 6 months, and 17 months. Additionally, the assessment encompassed the presence of radiolucent lines adjacent to the restoration, material deficiencies or excess, contact points, and caries recurrence. The data underwent analysis using the Friedman and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Results: After 17 months, the results revealed that the alkasite restorative material exhibited greater wear of anatomical shape compared to the bulk-fill resin composite ( Conclusions: The alkasite restorative material (Cention N) emerges as a viable option for restoring endodontically treated teeth, displaying clinically acceptable alterations after a 17-month evaluation period. Trial Registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) Identifier: RBR-97kx5jv.
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.