Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of Cention-N® with direct restorative materials used at the daily practice (e.g., resin-based composites/RBC, glass ionomer cements/GIC, bioactive resins, silver amalgam) via a systematic review study. METHODS: The review followed the PRISMA-NMA recommendations, and the protocol of the review was published at osf.io/ybde8. The search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, and SciELO databases, as well as in the grey literature (Open Grey, Proquest, and Periódicos CAPES). Studies with an in vitro experimental design evaluating the characteristics and properties of Cention-N in comparison to other restorative materials were included. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the RoBDEMAT tool, and meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and MetaInsight V3 tools. RESULTS: A total of 85 studies were included in the review, from which 79 were meta-analyzed. Several characteristics of direct restorative materials were analyzed, including physical (color change, degree of conversion, hardness, microleakage, polymerization rate, roughness, water solubility, water sorption), mechanical (bond strength to dentin, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, flexural modulus, flexural strength, load-to-fracture, wear), and biological (alkalinizing effect, antibacterial activity, calcium and fluoride release) properties. SIGNIFICANCE: Cention-N presented similar physico-mechanical properties compared to RBCs, but a stronger behavior than GICs. Despite the Alkasite nature of Cention-N, GICs may still demonstrate the greatest fluoride releasing ability from all direct restorative materials. This review confirmed the adequate behavior of Cention-N when compared to several other more traditionally used materials, confirming its applicability for the permanent restoration of decayed or fractured teeth.

In vitro characterization of a novel resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers

Abstract Objective: In this study, a comparative evaluation of the physicochemical properties of Cention N and other direct restorative materials was performed. Three restorative materials—a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), an alkasite-based resinous material (Cention N), and a resin composite (Tetric N Ceram)—were characterized in terms of degree of conversion, Knoop hardness number (KHN) ratio, flexural strength, elastic modulus, water sorption, water solubility, microshear bond strength to dentin, immediate microleakage, and radiopacity. Methodology: The microshear bond strength to dentin and microleakage of Cention N were evaluated with and without the application of an adhesive system (Tetric N Bond Universal). A one-way ANOVA test was used to analyze the data in terms of degree of conversion, KHN ratio, water sorption, water solubility, microshear bond strength to dentin, and radiopacity. A two-way ANOVA test (carried out considering the material type and ethanol aging as factors) was used to analyze the data in terms of flexural strength and elastic modulus. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to statistically analyze the data on microleakage. A significance level of α=0.05 was used for all tests. Results: Fuji II LC was found to have the highest degree of conversion, water sorption, and microleakage, as well as the lowest flexural strength. Cention N had the highest solubility; when used with an adhesive system, it achieved bond strength and microleakage similar to those of the Tetric N Ceram composite. Tetric N Ceram had the highest degree of conversion, KHN ratio, and radiopacity. Conclusion: The properties of Cention N validate its efficacy as an alternative direct restorative material when used in conjunction with an adhesive system.

Efficacy of bioactive materials in preventing Streptococcus mutans-induced caries on enamel and dentine.

The study investigated the ability of bioactive materials used to restore enamel and dentine specimens to prevent caries. Enamel (n = 50) and dentine (n = 50) specimens were obtained from bovine incisors, prepared, and randomly allocated to one of five groups according to the restorative treatment: alkasite without adhesive system; alkasite with adhesive system; high viscosity glass ionomer cement; resin composite; no restoration; negative control group. Specimens were restored, exposed to a thermal cycling aging protocol, sterilized, and exposed to a cariogenic challenge induced by Streptococcus mutans and then submitted to surface and subsurface microhardness tests and polarized light microscopy to verify the caries lesion development in enamel or dentine surrounding the restorative materials. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. In enamel and dentine, glass ionomer cement, alkasite without and with adhesive system presented a lower percentage surface microhardness loss than resin composite and negative control. Enamel subsurface microhardness presented no statistically significant differences between glass ionomer cement, alkasite without and with adhesive system. Glass ionomer cement also did not present statistically significant differences from resin composite and the negative control. In dentine, glass ionomer cement showed the highest subsurface microhardness values. In conclusion, bioactive restorative materials provide greater protection to enamel and dentine against surface caries development than resin composite.