Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41745556
Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Alkasite Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Laporte Chloé, Bourgi Rim, Cuevas-Suárez Carlos Enrique, et al. · Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/jfb17020093
Findings
Population Permanent or deciduous teeth with Class I, II or V cavities
18 findings
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD -0.02 [-0.06, 0.01] GRADE not reported 7 studies · 586 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive (as captioned in Figure 6) | RD 0.00 [-0.07, 0.07] GRADE not reported 1 study · 54 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 249 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 417 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.04] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 354 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Other restorative materials (resin composite or glass ionomer cement) | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.07, 0.07] GRADE not reported 1 study · 54 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.04, 0.04] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 126 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD 0.05 [-0.04, 0.13] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 103 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD -0.04 [-0.10, 0.03] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 183 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.05] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 102 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive (as captioned in Figure 6) | RD 0.00 [-0.07, 0.07] GRADE not reported 1 study · 54 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Resin composite | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.07, 0.07] GRADE not reported 1 study · 54 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD -0.01 [-0.07, 0.04] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 147 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive (as captioned in Figure 6) | Subtotal glass ionomer cement: not estimable (no studies) No studies found 0 studies · 0 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) <12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD -0.02 [-0.08, 0.03] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 251 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Secondary caries (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | RD 0.00 [-0.03, 0.03] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 291 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N without adhesive | RD -0.02 [-0.05, 0.01] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 403 participants |
| Cention N (alkasite restorative material) | Glass ionomer cement | Restoration retention (unacceptable restorations) >12 months follow-up · Cention N with adhesive | Subtotal glass ionomer cement: not estimable (no studies) No studies found 0 studies · 0 participants |
Included primary studies 13
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Da Cunha 2022 New Dual-cure Resin-based Material in Occlusal and Occluso-proximal Restorations of Primary Teeth: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:35528486 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kataria 2023 Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical… PMID:38344373 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Oz 2023 Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial. PMID:37377309 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Arora 2022 In vivo evaluation of clinical performance of Cention N and glass ionomer cement in proximal restorations of primary molars. PMID:35439879 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bepu 2024 Alkasite restorative material for endodontically treated teeth: a randomized controlled pilot study. PMID:39247650 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Derchi 2022 Clinical Performance of CentionTM Alkasite Restorative Material vs. Glass Ionomer Cement Used in Deciduous Teeth: One-Year Evaluation DOI:10.3390/app122110845 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fattah 2022 Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized… DOI:10.3889/oamjms.2022.10354 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hirani 2018 Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Bulk Fill Restoratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PMID:30596045 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kaur 2023 Comparison between Restorative Materials for Pulpotomised Deciduous Molars: A Randomized Clinical Study. PMID:36832414 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mushtaq 2021 Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Following Restoration of Class I Lesions with Different Restorative Materials: An In… PMID:34393122 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mustafa 2024 Periodontal Evaluation for a New Alkasite Restorative Material in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial. PMID:39400529 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sharma 2023 Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar… PMID:36947344 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Soneta 2022 An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill… PMID:36865732 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Permanent or deciduous teeth of humans with Class I, Class II or Class V cavities | Primary and permanent teeth, Class I and II restorations (n=13 studies, 10 in meta-analysis) |
| Intervention | Alkasite restorative materials | Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent) with or without adhesive (n=13) |
| Comparison | Other restorative materials (glass ionomer, resin composite, amalgam) | Resin composite, glass ionomer cement, stainless steel crowns, other ion-releasing materials (n=13) |
| Outcomes | Clinical performance (retention, secondary caries) | Restoration retention and secondary caries pooled (n=10); postoperative sensitivity and others narrative |
| Study designs | Clinical trials reporting alkasite materials with a control group, minimum follow-up 12 months; English, Spanish or Portuguese | Randomized clinical trials (12) and one non-randomized clinical trial |
| Timing | Minimum follow-up of 12 months; summarized as 6 to 12 months and >12 months | Follow-up from 24 hours to 17 months; pooled as <12 months and >12 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | No | no |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |