Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin-modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1-year Randomized Clinical Trial.

AIM AND

BACKGROUND

The balance between mechanical properties, esthetics, and therapeutic benefits in restorative materials, especially for high-risk patients, is lacking. Effective comparative study designs are required. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of Alkasite bioactive restorative material vs resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) in cervical carious lesions according to United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria over 1 year.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Twenty-eight high-risk adult patients with Class V cavities in anterior or premolar teeth were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 14 each). The first group received restorations with an RMGI. In contrast, using a selective etching technique and a universal adhesive, the second group was restored with a bulk-fill alkasite. All materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline (1 week), after 6 months, and after 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Regarding the primary outcome of marginal integrity, no statistically significant difference was found between the alkasite and RMGI restorations at any follow-up interval. However, within the RMGI group, a statistically significant change in marginal integrity was observed across different follow-up periods. All secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in either intragroup or intergroup comparisons at the various follow-up intervals, except for anatomic form, where a statistically significant difference was observed within the RMGI group over different follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

Both restorations have shown similar clinical performance over a year, indicating their effectiveness in cervical restorations. Alkasite restoration can successfully replace RMGI for cervical restorations in patients with a high caries index.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study addressed the need for restorative materials that balance mechanical strength, esthetics, and therapeutic benefits in high-risk patients. Alkasite restorations are promising alternatives to RMGI. The findings will guide material selection for enhanced functionality, esthetics, and long-term caries prevention.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04716517. How to cite this article: Al-Salamony H, Akah M, Naguib EA, et al. Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin-modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1-year Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(12):1127-1134.