Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

Abstract

ObjectivesThis randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared the 2‐year clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites (Cention N and Surefil One) with that of a conventional bulk‐fill resin composite (Powerfil) in Class I and II cavities.MethodsThirty‐two patients, each with 3 Class I and/or Class II cavities under occlusion, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 96 restorations were placed, 32 for each material, as follows: a self‐adhesive composite; Surefil‐one, alkasite; Cention N, and a bulk‐fill resin composite; Powerfil. The restorations were placed by a single operator. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (1‐week), 6‐months, 1‐year, and 2‐years by two independent examiners using the FDI criteria. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman Tests. Multiple comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon‐rank tests. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.ResultsTwenty‐seven patients with a total of 81 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 2‐years with 84.35% recall rates. Clinical success rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.3% for Powerfil, Surefil‐one, and Cention N, respectively. Cention N showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreased marginal integrity in comparison with resin composite at the 2‐year evaluation. No recurrent decay was detected in any restoration.ConclusionsBoth ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites provided acceptable clinical performance similar to bulk‐fill composite in Class I and II restorations over a 2‐year period.Clinical RelevanceThe results of this trial suggests that there is a promising evidence supporting the use of ion‐releasing composites.

Mechanical Properties of Alkasite Material with Different Curing Modes and Simulated Aging Conditions

“…The ability of alkasite to meet the ISO requirement for minimum FS even under such unfavorable conditions indicates its optimal mechanical stability and potential for use in load-bearing areas. This is consistent with reports of alkasite’s good performance under clinical conditions, albeit with short follow-up times of only 1–2 years [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].…”

“…Some compositional differences among these material versions are likely but have not been explicitly stated by the manufacturer. Regardless of the material version, there is a reasonable amount of evidence for the good performance of the alkasite under in vitro conditions [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ], as well as in randomized clinical trials [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], as summarized below.…”

“…Considering that the material is relatively new, only short-term results of clinical studies with a duration of up to 2 years are published. Despite the lower marginal integrity of alkasite compared to a conventional bulk-fill composite in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a 2-year follow-up, no secondary caries was observed, and the overall clinical performance of alkasite was found to be similar to that of the conventional bulk-fill composite [ 13 ]. In an RCT on non-carious cervical lesions, the alkasite showed better retention, marginal integrity, anatomic form, and color stability than a resin-modified glass ionomer after 1 year [ 14 ].…”

Clinical Effectiveness of Ion-Releasing Restorations versus Composite Restorations in Dental Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…In total, 29 RCTs [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] were included, of which only 1 [ 50 ] was parallel. All studies reported that the total number of patients ranged from 10 to 92 and the number of teeth treated ranged from 16 to 180.…”

Assessment of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of a Novel Bioactive Dental Restorative Material (Surefil One)

“…As with any new material, clinical and in vitro studies to test the biological, mechanical, durability, and optical properties were evaluated. Multiple clinical studies found Surefil one to be promising [ 7 , 10 , 11 ]. According to Lohbauer and Belli’s evaluation, Surefil one’s mechanical characteristics fell within a range that was comparable to that of the resin-based composites when compared to three direct composite resins and two GIC materials.…”