IADR Abstract Archives

Clinical Evaluation of an Amalgam Replacement Restorative Material: 12-month Recall

Objectives: To compare posterior fillings with the ion-releasing Alkasite material Cention N (with and without adhesive) to amalgam restorations (Valiant) in a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study.
Methods: 41 patients received 3 or 6 Class I or Class II restorations (126 restorations, 40% premolars, 60% molars, 29% Class I, 71% Class II): Cention N (with self-etching Adhese Universal adhesive), Cention N (without adhesive), one amalgam (Valiant). Restorations were evaluated by modified FDI criteria approximately 2wks (baseline), 6mos and 12mos after treatment. 12mos criteria were analyzed by Krusal-Wallis and Dunn’s post-hoc tests.
Results: 38 patients (111 restorations) were evaluated at 12mos recall (see table). Six restorative failures occurred: Cention N (without adhesive) due to retention loss at 6mos, Cention N (with adhesive) due to persistent hypersensitivity at 6mos, Valiant due to persistent post-op sensitivity at 12mos, Valiant due to cusp fracture at 12mos, Cention N (without adhesive) due to material fracture at 12mos, Cention N (with adhesive) due to periapical abscess at 12mos. Significant differences were seen between materials for surface luster (p<.01), surface staining (p<.01), marginal adaptation (p=.04), marginal staining (p<.01). Cention N without adhesive performed worse than Valiant in marginal staining (p<.01) and marginal adaptation (p=.37). Regarding marginal adaptation and staining, the percentage of 1 scores (excellent) was nominally higher for Cention N with adhesive than without. Cention N fillings had lower (p<.01) surface luster compared to Valiant, however, 80+% of the Cention N fillings were rated 1 or 2 for color match while Valiant was not evaluated in this category.
Conclusions: Overall, the ion-releasing Cention N scored 1 or 2 for over 90% of the restorations in all categories other than surface luster and color match. The results were largely similar to the amalgam restorations. Cention N with and without adhesive performed similarly but the restorations with adhesive tended to slightly higher scores.
Division: AADR/CADR Annual Meeting
Meeting: 2018 AADR/CADR Annual Meeting (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Year: 2018
Final Presentation ID: 0234
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 8: Clinical Trials
Authors
  • Lawson, Nathaniel  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Burgess, John  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Fu, Chin-chuan  ( University of alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Robles, Augusto  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Givan, Daniel  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: Ivoclar Vivadent
    Financial Interest Disclosure: All authors are investigators on a clinical trial sponsored by Ivoclar Vivadent
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Clinical Trials: Various Topics
    Thursday, 03/22/2018 , 11:00AM - 12:15PM
    TABLES
    Percentage of score 1 (excellent) and score 2 (good) at 12 months
     Surface LusterSurface StainingMaterial FractureTooth IntegrityMarginal StainingMarginal Adaptation
    Valiant94%100%95%95%100%100%
    Cention N with adhesive57%100%97%100%92%97%
    Cention N without adhesive51%97%97%100%97%97%