Trial reportOdontology2025
Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06273410 (Clinical Performance of An Alkasite Based Restorative Material With And Without Adhesive), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Clinical Performance of An Alkasite Based Restorative Material With And Without Adhesive (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bonding and fractographic characterization of universal adhesives applied to dentin in multimode strategies: an in vitro study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
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
This study evaluated the one-year clinical performance of Cention N, a new alkasite bioactive restorative material, compared to a conventional bulk-fill composite resin in 12 patients aged 18-45 years with class I cavities. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: Group I (Cention N without adhesive), Group II (Cention N with adhesive), and Group III (Filtek Bulk Fill composite resin). The restorations were monitored at baseline, three, six, and twelve months using the FDI criteria, assessing marginal staining, recurrent caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Statistical analysis was performed using the Monte Carlo correction, chi-square test, and Friedman's test (p ≤ 0.05). The results showed clinically acceptable FDI scores for all restorations at each time interval with no significant differences between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). However, Cention N without adhesive demonstrated slightly inferior outcomes in postoperative sensitivity and marginal staining at the six- and twelve-month intervals. Overall, both materials performed similarly in terms of clinical performance within the first year, though Cention N without adhesive showed marginally lower, but still acceptable, results.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06273410: 13/10/2022.
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.