Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2023 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Study to evaluate the Clinical Efficacy of a Novel Alkasite-based Material (Cention N), Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement, and Composite Resin for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: A Randomized Control Trial

Diksha Bhat, Monika Gupta, Inder K Pandit, Neeraj Gugnani

Keywords : Class II restorations, Composite resin, Dental caries, Primary molar

Citation Information : Bhat D, Gupta M, Pandit IK, Gugnani N. A Comparative Study to evaluate the Clinical Efficacy of a Novel Alkasite-based Material (Cention N), Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement, and Composite Resin for Restoration of Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: A Randomized Control Trial. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2023; 6 (2):56-61.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10077-3262

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-08-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Auhtor(s).


Aim: To evaluate and compare the clinical success of an alkasite-based restorative material (Cention N), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (3M ESPE Vitremer), and composite resin (Ceram X) when used as a restorative material in class II cavities in primary molars. Materials and methods: Around 45 primary molars were randomly divided into three equal groups—group I—Cention N, group II—RMGIC (3M ESPE Vitremer), and group III—composite (Ceram X) and restored with restorative materials, respectively. At 1-week, 1, and 4-month recall intervals the restorations were evaluated using FDI—criteria. Internal root resorption and pulp vitality were also evaluated at 4-month recall intervals. Results: The data were analyzed using the Chi-squared test. Cention N proved to exhibit the best performance followed by RMGIC and composite resin. After 4 months of recall intervals, the statistical analysis showed a significant difference in terms of marginal/surface staining (p = 0.004), material fracture/retention (p = 0.001), marginal adaptation (p = 0.027), and postoperative sensitivity (p = 0.046), however, a nonsignificant difference was observed in terms of recurrence of caries (p = 0.407), internal root resorption (p = 0.207), and pulp vitality (p = 0.207) in all the three groups. Conclusion: Cention N exhibited the highest success rate when compared to RMGIC and composite resin.

  1. Rajendran R, Sivapathasundharam B, Shafer W. G. 2009. Shafer's textbook of oral pathology (6th ed.). Elsevier/Reed Elsevier.
  2. Petersen PE, Lennon MA. Effective use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries in the 21st century: the WHO approach. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32(5):319–321. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00175.x
  3. Dimitrov E, Georgieva M, Andreeva R, et al. Caries prevalence among 5-7-year-old children in Northeast Bulgaria. J of IMAB 2017;23(3):1633–1636. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2017233.1633
  4. Marks LA, Faict N, Welbury RR. Literature review: restorations of class II cavities in the primary dentition with compomers. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11(3):109–114. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262725
  5. Mann JS, Sharma S, Maurya S, et al. Cention N: a review. Int J Curr Adv Res 2018;5:69111–69112.
  6. Phonghanyudh A, Theerareungchaisri C, Jirarattanasopa V. Clinical evaluation of class II high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations in primary molars: one-year result. M Dent J 2014;34(2):129–136.
  7. Hübel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13(1):2–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2003.00416.x
  8. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):14–21. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262565
  9. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004;32(4):285–294. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001
  10. Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65(9):491–495. PMID: 10560209.
  11. Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, et al. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass Ionomer cement: an in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(1):5–9.
  12. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N with conventionally used restorative materials—an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;8(4):120–124. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219
  13. 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. IOSR-JDMS 2019;17(4):52–56. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1704015256
  14. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(3):200–207. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
  15. Guideline IH. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). Current Step. 2015;2:1–60.
  16. Jaykaran YP, Kantharia ND. Reporting of sample size and power in negative clinical trials published in Indian medical journals. J Pharm Negative Results 2011;2(2):87–90. DOI: 10.4103/0976-9234.90220
  17. Hamie S, Badr S, Ragab H. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of glass ionomer compared to resin composite in restoring primary molars: a 1-year prospective randomized study. J Pediatr Dent 2017;5:6–13. DOI: 10.4103/jpd.jpd_11_17
  18. Biswas I, Shil R, Mazumdar P, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Dyract-XP composite resin and Cention-N restoration in class I cavity. Int J Innovat Res Dent Sci 2019;3(2):384–392.
  19. Arora D, Jain M, Shahi P, 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
  20. Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, Cention N, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam)–an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res 2018;6(3):826–832. DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/6737
  21. Soares CJ, Faria-E-Silva AL, Rodrigues MP, et al. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements - what do we need to know? Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):e62. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0062
  22. Afraaz A, Borugadda R, Mandava J, et al. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and wear resistance of nanohybrid and alkasite restorative resins. JCDR 2020;14(12):ZC16–ZC20. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2020/45840.14305
  23. 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.
  24. Documentation S. Cention N Ivoclar Vivadent AG Research & Development Scientific Service.
  25. Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2011;12(1):5–14. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262772
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.