Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract Objective This 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. Results After 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. Conclusion The tested restorative materials performed similar successful clinical performances after 12 months. ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC04825379).

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

Abstract Objective This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. Methodology 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar's tests were used to detect differences over time. Results After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months. Conclusion Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. Clinical relevance Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Material and Methods Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05). Results The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention. Conclusion GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.