Scholarlink

<p>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&#xa0;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 (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05). The results showed clinically acceptable FDI scores for all restorations at each time interval with no significant differences between the groups (<i>p</i> ≥ 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.</p><p><b>Trial registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06273410: 13/10/2022.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月15日

查看全文
  • Nada A. El-Salamouny,
  • Waleed A. Elmahy,
  • Ahmed A. Holiel

摘要

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.