Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This manuscript presents a 24-month randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of bioactive restorative materials in preventing secondary caries compared with conventional composite restorations. Four restorative materials were tested in 120 class I and II cavities among high-caries-risk adults: conventional composite (Filtek Z350 XT), glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP), giomer (Beautifil II), and Cention N.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional resin composite restorations | Active Comparator | Arm 1 - Composite (Control): Participants received restorations using Filtek Z350 XT nano-filled resin composite placed according to the manufacturer's instructions following minimally invasive cavity preparation. |
|
| Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) | Experimental | Arm 2 - Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC): Participants received restorations using Fuji IX GP conventional glass ionomer cement with fluoride-releasing properties. |
|
| Giomer | Active Comparator | Arm 3 - Giomer: Participants received restorations using Beautifil II giomer restorative material containing surface pre-reacted glass ionomer (S-PRG) fillers capable of releasing and recharging bioactive ions. |
|
| Cention N | Experimental | Cention N: Participants received restorations using Cention N alkasite restorative material containing alkaline glass fillers designed to release calcium, hydroxide, and fluoride ions under acidic conditions. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fuji IX GP Glass Ionomer Cement | Device | Fuji IX GP Glass Ionomer Cement |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Primary outcome measure | Number of Restorations Developing Secondary Caries. Secondary caries will be assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II), with any score ≥3 at the cavosurface margin considered indicative of secondary caries. Evaluations will be performed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. | 2 years |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| College of Dentistry, Jouf University | Sakakah | Aljouf | 72388 | Saudi Arabia |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | 1.Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990-2015. J Dent Res. 2017;96(4):380-387. doi:10.1177/0022034517693566. 2.Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249-260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8. 3.Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87-101. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003. 4.Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-949. doi:10.1177/0022034514544217. 5.Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 2000;31(3):165-179. 6.Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick BL, Blum IR, Wilson NHF. An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent. 2018;72:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.001. 7.Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012;120(6):539-548. doi:10.1111/eos.12004. 8.Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL. Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? Dent Mater. 2015;31(11):e247-e277. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001. 9.Kidd EAM. Diagnosis of secondary caries. J Dent Educ. 2001;65(10):997-1000. doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03459.x. 10.Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29-38. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020. 11.Schwendicke F, Tu YK, Hsu LY, Göstemeyer G. Antibacterial effects of cavity lining materials in caries-affected dentine: a systematic review. Cari |
Not provided
Not provided
De-identified data may be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Beautifil II Giomer | Device | Beautifil II Giomer |
|
| Cention N | Device | Cention N |
|
| Filtek Z350 XT Composite Resin | Device | Filtek Z350 XT Composite Resin |
|