Clinical evaluation of Cention–N and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of non-carious cervical lesion

Dodiya, Parth V; Parekh, Vaishali; Gupta, Mona Somani; Patel, Nidhi; Shah, Mukti

doi:10.18231/j.jds.2019.001

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is capable of releasing acid-neutralizing ions. Parth et al concluded that Cention N is equally good in gross fracture and marginal integrity as nanohybrid composite but exhibit poorer surface characteristics [6]. Cention N was introduced as the alternative to amalgam and, as a new material, studies on its surface roughness are limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials

Yahya

Gonzalez

Ibrahim

et al. 2020

ADUM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the surface roughness of selected tooth coloured restorative materials that were polished according to manufacturers’ instructions and Sof-Lex. It also assessed the surface roughness of polished materials after thermocycling. Filtek Z350XT, Beautifil-Bulk Restorative and Cention N, were used in this study. A stainless steel mould (10mm diameter x 2mm height) was used to fabricate 75 cylindrical specimens: 15 Filtek Z350XT (FZ), 30 Beautifil-Bulk Restorative (BB) and 30 Cention N (CN). All 15 FZ specimens were polished with Sof-Lex. Fifteen BB and CN specimens were polished according to manufacturers’ instructions. The remaining fifteen BB and CN specimens were polished using Sof-Lex. All the specimens were subjected to thermocycling (1000 cycles). Surface roughness was assessed quantitatively with profilometry after specimen preparation (Mylar stage), polishing and thermocycling. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25.0 at α=0.05. When polished according to manufacturers’ instructions, BB had the lowest mean surface roughness (Ra) values (0.13±0.01μm) followed sequentially by CN (0.14±0.03μm) and FZ (0.15±0.02μm). The differences were not statistically significant. When polished with Sof-Lex, BB exhibited the smoothest surface (0.116±0.03μm) followed sequentially by and FZ (0.150±0.02μm) and CN (0.157±0.02μm). Thermocycling caused an increase in the Ra. The differences were statistically significant. All materials tested had Ra values below the threshold value of 0.2 µm at Mylar stage and after polishing with their recommended polishing system and Sof-Lex. Thermocycling produced rougher surfaces that did not exceed the threshold Ra value. Polishability was material dependent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials

Yahya

Gonzalez

Ibrahim

et al. 2020

ADUM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, it was shown that clinical performance of Cention N is quite satisfying. In a study evaluating fail ure rate of Cention N restoration in 6 month, the material was observed to have effective marginal integrity as Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar, Vivadent; Schaan, Liechtenstein) but with lesser surface characteristics [13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

Recen¹,

Yazkan²

2021

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Despite the advancements in restorative materials, there are certain drawbacks, including micro leakage resulting from insufficient wall adaptation. An effective seal at the tooth/restoration interface is crucial. Objectives:The aim of the study was to investigate microleakage of different selfadhesive restorative materials. Material and methods: ClassV cavities were prepared and divided into seven experimental groups with regards to applied material and pretreatment procedures (n = 12). Cavities were restored with selfadhesive materials, such as hybrid glass ionomer (HGI) without pretreatment (PT), HGI with PT, glass carbomer (GCP) without PT, GCP with PT, alkasite without adhesive resin (AR), alkasite with AR, nanohybrid composite resin with AR, and compared in terms of microleakage. Data were analyzed using KolmogorovSmirnov, KruskalWal lis, and MannWhitney U tests, with SPSS. Results: Significant difference in microleakage was found among enamel and dentin (p < 0.05). Leakage values from enamel were obtained as follows: alkasite with AR = nanohybrid composite resin with AR < alkasite without AR < HGI with PT < HGI without PT = GCP with PT < GCP without PT, while leakage values obtained from den tin included alkasite with AR = nanohybrid composite resin with AR = alkasite without AR = HGI with PT < HGI without PT = GCP with PT < GCP without PT. Conclusions: Microleakage properties are materialdependent and may vary due to ingredients. Alkasite with AR could be an alternative to nanohybrid composite due to better sealing ability of both enamel and dentin, while alkasite without AR and HGI with PT are the preferred materials for dentin. GCP without PT showed the highest microleakage.

show abstract

“…Cention N™ has a compressive strength that is almost identical to silver amalgam [26], [27]. These findings were conflicting with Dodiya et al, 2019, who reported that after 1 week, Cention N™ had poorer surface characteristics than other competing material, and related this to a variety of factors such as mixing type and particle size of materials [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial

Fattah

Jamil²,

Elezz³

2022

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Finding a restorative material that can survive and be quite resistant in high caries risk patients is very challenging, that’s why three different glass hybrid restorations were tested for their clinical performance for one year in high caries risk patients. AIM: This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of three glass hybrid restorations; nano-ionomer restoration (Ketac Nano), bioactive ionomer glass fillers (Activa bioactive), and alkasite restorative material (Cention N) in Class I cavity in high caries risk patients after 1 year according to the FDI criteria for the assessment of dental restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifteen cooperative patients, males or females with high caries risk who were approving to participate in the trial of age range 18–50 years, were selected in the present study. Every patient should have three or more posterior teeth having occlusal pits and fissure carious lesions. Three Class I cavities were performed for every patient and restored randomly with Ketac Nano™, Activa Bioactive™, and Cention N™. All three restorations were applied, according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline (immediately), after 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year by two blinded assessors using FDI criteria for the assessment of dental restorations measuring functional properties. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Evaluation of functional properties was checked by Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test statistics at 0.05 level. Collected data were analyzed for descriptive statistics both graphically and mathematically in terms of frequency, percent, median, interquartile range, and mean and standard deviations. Differences in evaluations between materials (M1, M2, and M3) were carried out by Chi-squared test at 0.05 level. However, differences between follow-up times (T0, T1, T2, and T3) were carried out by Friedman’s test for related samples for non-parametric data. Variations caused by the three materials and follow-up times in addition to interaction between them were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA for ranked data at significance levels of 0.05. Data analysis was carried out using computer software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS (IBM-SPSSver.23.0 for MacOS). RESULTS: Results of functional properties of the three restorative materials revealed that at baseline (T0) and 3 months (T1), all cases (100%) of the three materials were clinically successful, with no significant difference between them. However, after 6 months, 58 cases (97%) of M1, 56 cases (93%) of M2, and 54 cases (90%) of M3 were clinically successful, with non-significant difference between them. Moreover, after 12 months, 55 cases (91.6%) of M1, 56 cases (93%) of M2, and 53 cases (88%) of M3 were clinically successful, with non-significant difference between them. CONCLUSION: In the purpose of restoring posterior permanent teeth in high caries risk patients, all three restorative materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in Class I cavities with the same success rate.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of Cention–N and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of non-carious cervical lesion

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials

Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials

A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About