Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2024)
Volume  6 (2023)
Volume  5 (2022)
Volume  4 (2021)
Volume  3 (2020)
Volume  2 (2019)
Volume  1 (2018)
Related articles

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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

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).


Abstract

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.

HTML PDF Share
  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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2837
  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.