The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin-modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1-year Randomized Clinical Trial

Hadeel Al-Salamony, Mai Akah, Essam A Naguib, Omaima M Safwat

Keywords : Alkasite restoration, Carious class V, Cention N, Cervical caries, High-risk, Modified USPHS criteria, Resin-modified glass ionomer

Citation Information : Al-Salamony H, Akah M, Naguib EA, Safwat OM. Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin-modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1-year Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (12):1127-1134.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3787

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 05-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: The balance between mechanical properties, esthetics, and therapeutic benefits in restorative materials, especially for high-risk patients, is lacking. Effective comparative study designs are required. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of Alkasite bioactive restorative material vs resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) in cervical carious lesions according to United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria over 1 year. Materials and methods: Twenty-eight high-risk adult patients with Class V cavities in anterior or premolar teeth were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 14 each). The first group received restorations with an RMGI. In contrast, using a selective etching technique and a universal adhesive, the second group was restored with a bulk-fill alkasite. All materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline (1 week), after 6 months, and after 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: Regarding the primary outcome of marginal integrity, no statistically significant difference was found between the alkasite and RMGI restorations at any follow-up interval. However, within the RMGI group, a statistically significant change in marginal integrity was observed across different follow-up periods. All secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in either intragroup or intergroup comparisons at the various follow-up intervals, except for anatomic form, where a statistically significant difference was observed within the RMGI group over different follow-up periods. Conclusion: Both restorations have shown similar clinical performance over a year, indicating their effectiveness in cervical restorations. Alkasite restoration can successfully replace RMGI for cervical restorations in patients with a high caries index. Clinical significance: This study addressed the need for restorative materials that balance mechanical strength, esthetics, and therapeutic benefits in high-risk patients. Alkasite restorations are promising alternatives to RMGI. The findings will guide material selection for enhanced functionality, esthetics, and long-term caries prevention. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04716517.

PDF Share
  1. Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and microleakage properties of cention-n, composite, and glass ionomer cement restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(6):691–695. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024- 2837.
  2. Cheng L, Zhang L, Yue L, et al. Expert consensus on dental caries management. Int J Oral Sci 2022;14(1):17. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-022-00167-3.
  3. Pant G, Vijay Krishna B, Abed NK, et al. Advances in dental materials: Bioactive glass and ceramic composites: A review. E3S Web Conf 2024;505:1–10. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202450501026.
  4. Hegazi R, Jamil W, Fawzy A. Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of three different glass hybrid restorations in high caries risk patients: A randomized control trial. Dent Sci Updat 2023;4(1):171–183. DOI: 10.21608/dsu.2023.152260.1134.
  5. Kim JH, Cho J, Lee Y, et al. The survival of class V composite restorations and analysis of marginal discoloration. Oper Dent 2017;42(3):E93–E101. DOI: 10.2341/16-186-C.
  6. Varma KM, Satish RK, Sajjan G, et al. An update on Cention N: An aesthetic direct bulk-fill restorative material. Int J Dent Mater 2023;5(1):13–16. DOI: 10.37983/IJDM.2023.5104.
  7. Chowdhury D, Guha C, Desai P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class II cavity comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class I. J Dent Med Sci 2019;17(4):52–56. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1704015256.
  8. Iftikhar N, Srivastava B, Gupta N, et al. A comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of four different restorative materials: An in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(1):47–49. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592.
  9. Koc Vural U, Kerimova L, Kiremitci A. Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Odontology 2021;109(2):376–384. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-020-00550-8.
  10. Bayazıt EÖ, Başeren M, Meral E. Clinical comparison of different glass ionomer-based restoratives and a bulk-fill resin composite in Class I cavities: A 48-month randomized split-mouth controlled trial. J Dent 2023;131(2):104473. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104473.
  11. Yehia YH, Ibrahim AH, Abou-Auf E, et al. Clinical evaluation of bioactive restorative material versus resin modified glass ionomer in cervical restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2022;10(D):33–40. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2022.7952.
  12. Santos MJMC, Leon L, Siddique I, et al. Retrospective clinical evaluation of RMGIC/GIC class V restorations. Dent J 2023;11(9):1–12. DOI: 10.3390/dj11090225.
  13. Burrer P, Par M, Fürer L, et al. Effect of polymerization mode on shrinkage kinetics and degree of conversion of dual-curing bulk-fill resin composites. Clin Oral Investig 2023;27(6):3169–3180. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04928-0.
  14. El-Gaaly AN, Hassan RM, Shaalan O. Clinical evaluation of new bioactive restorative material versus resin modified glass ionomer in restoration of cervical lesions: Randomized Controlled Trial. Adv Dent J 2024;6(2):339–349. DOI: 10.21608/adjc.2023.177122.1203.
  15. Bond S, Of S, Versus V, et al. Shear bond strength of viscous versus resin modified glass ionomers to dentin conditioned with different protocols. Egypt Dent J 2017;63:775–782. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.75026.
  16. Sauro S, Faus-Matoses V, Makeeva I, et al. Effects of polyacrylic acid pre-treatment on bonded-dentine interfaces created with a modern bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement and subjected to cycling mechanical stress. Materials (Basel) 2018;11(10):1884. DOI: 10.3390/ma11101884.
  17. Dennis D, Pintauli S, Debora S. Microleakage comparative evaluation of RMGIC and Alkasite with and without adhesive system in class V cavity: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(7):735–738. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3130.
  18. Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(3):403–407. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17.
  19. Sharma H, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, et al. Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar teeth of children: A randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2023;24(3):301–311. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-023-00788-0.
  20. Mederos M, de LEÓN E, García A, et al. In vitro characterization of a novel resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers. J Appl Oral Sci 2024;32:1–11. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0219.
  21. Bozkurt FÖ, Toz-Akalin T, Özsoy-Kaner A, et al. Two-year clinical performance of an alkasite direct restorative material in Class I and II cavities without using an adhesive resin: A prospective single-arm clinical trial. American journal of dentistry, 2024:37(6);317–324.
  22. Kataria VG, Patel MC, Bhatt R, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of different glass ionomer restorative materials in primary molars: A comparative randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(6):829–836. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2709.
  23. El-Salamouny NA, El Mahy WAE, Holiel AA, Clinical performance of an alkasite based restorative material (a split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial). Alexandria Dental Journal. DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2024.279575.1492
  24. Alves FBT, Hesse D, Lenzi TL, et al. The bonding of glass ionomer cements to caries-affected primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 2013;35(4):320–324. PMID: 23930629.
  25. Haralur SB, Al Ghaseb GA, Alqahtani NA, et al. Comparison of microleakage between different restorative materials to restore marginal gap at crown margin. PeerJ 2021;9:1–8. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10823.
  26. Hussainy SN, Nasim I, Thomas T, et al. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(5):510–515. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18.
  27. Ballal NV, Jalan P, Rai N, et al. Evaluation of new alkasite based restorative material for restoring non-carious cervical lesions- randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023;31(1):72–77. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_51_18.
  28. Zaki ZM, Niazy MA, Zaazou MH, et al. Effect of incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite particles on the clinical performance of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities: Split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. Bull Natl Res Cent 2021;45(1):1–15. DOI: 10.1186/s42269-021-00655-2.
  29. Mohan M, Aljohani Y, Glenn Rosivack R. Effect of a wear-resistant resin coat on the color stability of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2021;39(3):262–266. DOI: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_387_20.
  30. Bhattacharya S, Purayil TP, Ginjupalli K, et al. Effect of thermocycling on the colour stability of aesthetic restorative materials: An in-vitro spectrophotometric analysis. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2020;20:1–6. DOI: 10.1590/pboci.2020.020.
  31. Arora D, Jain M, Sogi HPS, et al. In vivo evaluation of clinical performance of Cention N and glass ionomer cement in proximal restorations of primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2022;40(1):23–29. DOI: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_108_21.
  32. Attia R, Sabry R, Elafefy A, et al. Clinical performance of alkasite dental material and high viscosity glass ionomer restorations in class I cavities. Comparative study for one year follow up. Egypt Dent J 2022;68(4):3881–3894. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2022. 140829.2123.
  33. Zaki ZM, Nagi SM, Abdelnabi AE, et al. Clinical performance of nano-hydroxyapatite-modified glass ionomer cements in class V cavities: Split mouth, randomized controlled trial. Bull Natl Res Cent 2022;46(1):116. DOI: 10.1186/s42269-022-00799-9.
  34. Fattah RIA, Jamil WE, Elezz AFA. Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of three different glass hybrid restorations in high caries risk patients: A randomized control trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2023;10(D):398–405. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2022.10354.
  35. Bharate RR, Patel AS, Reche A, et al. A comparative evaluation of postoperative sensitivity between cention-n and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavity: An in vivo study. Cureus 2023;15(10):1–8. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47801.
  36. Hirani RT, Batra R, Kapoor S. Comparative evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in bulk fill restoratives: A randomized controlled trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8(6):543–539. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_218_18.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.