Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThe aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in Class II restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 50 patients requiring at least three Class II restorations in premolar and molar teeth were recruited. Each patient received three restorations, which were randomly assigned to one of the following materials: an alkasite (Cention N, Ivoclar Vivadent), a glass-hybrid (Equia Forte HT, GC Corp.), or a resin composite (Gradia Direct Posterior, GC Corp.). Alkasite and glass-hybrid served as test groups while resin composite served as the control group. During the 18-month follow-up, restorations were scored at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months using the FDI criteria. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square and Cochran's Q tests (α = 0.05).
resultsNo significant differences were detected among the groups for esthetic, functional, or biological criteria over 18 months (p > 0.05). Regarding esthetic properties, the control group showed 100% success for all esthetic criteria at all recall visits, while the alkasite group maintained a 96% success rate at all time points, and glass-hybrid showed 98% success at 6 and 12 months and 92% at 18 months. Minor score-2 changes in color match and gloss were detected in the glass-hybrid and alkasite groups but were not significant (p > 0.05). For functional and biological outcomes, all groups achieved 100% success rates for all evaluated parameters.
conclusionsAlkasite and glass-hybrid groups exhibited clinical performance comparable to resin composite over the 18-month follow-up in Class II cavities. All materials demonstrated excellent functional and biological stability while achieving clinically acceptable aesthetic results.
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.