Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Alkasite restorative material for endodontically treated teeth: a randomized controlled pilot study

  • Received : 2024.02.18
  • Accepted : 2024.05.26
  • Published : 2024.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of an alkasite restorative material in molars that had undergone root canal treatment. Materials and Methods: The research was registered in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials. The randomized clinical trial involved 33 patients, each with at least 1 mandibular molar requiring restoration after receiving endodontic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent) or the alkasite restorative material (Cention N, Ivoclar Vivadent). Upon completion of the restorations, 3 calibrated professionals utilized the United States Public Health Service criteria to assess various factors, including retention, secondary caries, marginal adaptation, restoration color, marginal pigmentation, and anatomical form. Evaluations were conducted at intervals of 7 days, 6 months, and 17 months. Additionally, the assessment encompassed the presence of radiolucent lines adjacent to the restoration, material deficiencies or excess, contact points, and caries recurrence. The data underwent analysis using the Friedman and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Results: After 17 months, the results revealed that the alkasite restorative material exhibited greater wear of anatomical shape compared to the bulk-fill resin composite (p = 0.0189). Furthermore, the alkasite restorative material significantly differed from the natural tooth color in most cases (p = 0.0000). However, no other criteria displayed significant differences between the materials or over time (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The alkasite restorative material (Cention N) emerges as a viable option for restoring endodontically treated teeth, displaying clinically acceptable alterations after a 17-month evaluation period.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for financial support (152083/2021-9).

References

  1. Lempel E, Lovasz BV, Bihari E, Krajczar K, Jeges S, Toth A, et al. Long-term clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations in vital vs. endodontically treated posterior teeth - retrospective study up to 13 years. Dent Mater 2019;35:1308-1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.06.002
  2. Yassen GH, Platt JA. The effect of nonsetting calcium hydroxide on root fracture and mechanical properties of radicular dentine: a systematic review. Int Endod J 2013;46:112-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02121.x
  3. Kocak MM, Cirakoglu NY, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Cicek E, Turker SA, et al. Effect of retreatment instruments on microcrack formation: a microcomputed tomography study. Int J Artif Organs 2017;40:123-127. https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000578
  4. Lukarcanin J, Sadikoglu IS, Yasa B, Turkun LS, Turkun M. Comparison of different restoration techniques for endodontically treated teeth. Int J Biomater 2022;2022:6643825.
  5. Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011
  6. Veloso SR, Lemos CA, de Moraes SL, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:221-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7
  7. Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:417-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04015-2
  8. Gomes de Araujo-Neto V, Sebold M, Fernandes de Castro E, Feitosa VP, Giannini M. Evaluation of physico-mechanical properties and filler particles characterization of conventional, bulk-fill, and bioactive resin-based composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021;115:104288.
  9. Ballal NV, Jalan P, Rai N, Al-Haj Husain N, Ozcan M. Evaluation of new alkasite based restorative material for restoring non-carious cervical lesions- randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023;31:72-77.
  10. Di Lauro A, Di Duca F, Montuori P, Dal Piva AM, Tribst JP, Borges AL, et al. Fluoride and calcium release from alkasite and glass ionomer restorative dental materials: in vitro study. J Funct Biomater 2023;14:109.
  11. Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:2313.
  12. Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30:277-281. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_481_17
  13. Tiskaya M, Al-Eesa NA, Wong FS, Hill RG. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent Mater 2019;35:1757-1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.004
  14. Kini A, Shetty S, Bhat R, Shetty P. Microleakage evaluation of an alkasite restorative material: an in vitro dye penetration study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20:1315-1318. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2720
  15. Panpisut P, Toneluck A. Monomer conversion, dimensional stability, biaxial flexural strength, and fluoride release of resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers. Dent Mater J 2020;39:608-615. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-020
  16. Pai S, Naik N, Patil V, Kaur J, Awasti S, Nayak N. Evaluation and comparison of stress distribution in restored cervical lesions of mandibular premolars: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2019;9:605-611. https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_301_19
  17. Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, Babaji P, Apoorva K, Sharma A. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and microleakage properties of Cention-N, composite, and glass ionomer cement restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21:691-695. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2837
  18. Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, Patil S, Gade V, Raut A. 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;30:403-407. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17
  19. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-232.
  20. Dias KR, de Andrade CB, Wait TT, Chamon R, Ammari MM, Soviero VM, et al. Efficacy of sealing occlusal caries with a flowable composite in primary molars: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent 2018;74:49-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.014
  21. Heintze SD, Zellweger G, Peschke A. Wear of an ion-releasing powder/liquid polymer resin in relation to that of glass-ionomer and conventional resin composites. Am J Dent 2020;33:171-177.
  22. Ruengrungsom C, Burrow MF, Parashos P, Palamara JE. Evaluation of F, Ca, and P release and microhardness of eleven ion-leaching restorative materials and the recharge efficacy using a new Ca/P containing fluoride varnish. J Dent 2020;102:103474.
  23. Firouzmandi M, Alavi AA, Jafarpour D, Sadatsharifee S. Fracture strength and marginal adaptation of conservative and extended MOD cavities restored with Cention N. Int J Dent 2021;2021:5599042.
  24. Sharma A, Das S, Thomas MS, Ginjupalli K. Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials. Saudi Endod J 2019;9:205-209. https://doi.org/10.4103/sej.sej_94_18
  25. Albelasy EH, Hamama HH, Chew HP, Montasser M, Mahmoud SH. Clinical performance of two ionreleasing bulk-fill composites in class I and class II restorations: a two-year evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2024;36:723-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13193
  26. Arora D, Jain M, Suma Sogi HP, Shahi P, Gupta I, Sandhu M. 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;40:23-29. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_108_21
  27. Sharma H, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A, Kotian H. 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;24:301-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-023-00788-0
  28. Oz FD, Meral E, Gurgan S. Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 2023;31:e20230025.
  29. Kurinji Amalavathy R, Sahoo HS, Shivanna S, Lingaraj J, Aravinthan S. Staining effect of various beverages on and surface nano-hardness of a resin coated and a non-coated fluoride releasing tooth-coloured restorative material: an in-vitro study. Heliyon 2020;6:e04345.
  30. Rai S, Kumari RA, Meena N. Comparative assessment of fluoride release and recharge through newer fluoride releasing posterior restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22:544-547. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_92_19
  31. Theerarath T, Sriarj W. An alkasite restorative material effectively remineralized artificial interproximal enamel caries in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:4437-4445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04407-y