The evolution of restorative dental materials and technology has enabled the use of tooth-colored restorative materials in dental restorations, with all dentists hoping for the presence of materials that combine biocompatible qualities and aesthetics . Although resin composite materials' mechanical and aesthetic properties have greatly improved over the past 20 years, research is currently on to find ways to prevent secondary caries from forming beneath and at the margins of restorations. In order to circumvent these problems, there is a growing tendency towards the use of resin-based bioactive and remineralizing restorative materials to strengthen and lengthen the lifespan of bonded dental restorations.
The evolution of restorative dental materials and technology has enabled the use of tooth-colored restorative materials in dental restorations, with all dentists hoping for the presence of materials that combine biocompatible qualities and aesthetics . Although resin composite materials' mechanical and aesthetic properties have greatly improved over the past 20 years, research is currently on to find ways to prevent secondary caries from forming beneath and at the margins of restorations. In order to circumvent these problems, there is a growing tendency towards the use of resin-based bioactive and remineralizing restorative materials to strengthen and lengthen the lifespan of bonded dental restorations.Glass ionomer is one of the most commonly used materials in dental restorations. One of the most important properties of GICs is their ability to release fluoride and recharge. Other reasons for GIC's widespread use in the dental field are its beneficial properties such as adhesion to tooth structure, equivalent coefficient of thermal expansion of teeth, and excellent biocompatibility. However, they have disadvantages such as severe wear, high solubility, poor mechanical properties, and limited occlusal force resistance. Today's generation GICs have tried to address these disadvantages by incorporating a fast setting reinforced glass ionomer that should offer protection during the early maturation process and enhance strength and surface hardness. It has been improved by changes in the ratio of powder to liquid, particle size and dispersion. As a result, highly viscous glass ionomer (HVGIC) is available on the market. In the last few years, we have seen the introduction of a glass ionomer encapsulated with high mechanical properties as claimed by the manufacturer. The GIC, which is characterized by its rapid setting and high viscosity, could serve as an alternative to amalgam and composite restorations in cavities of class I and II for permanent teeth. For decades, dentists have been looking for a material that is affordable, fluoride releasing, easy to apply, strong, and aesthetically pleasing. A novel bioactive, alkasite material has been introduced enabling quick and efficient minimally invasive treatment. . It is a self-curing radiopaque material for direct treatment of anterior and posterior cavities. It is claimed as a tooth coloured, bioactive, durable material to be rendered as the new alternative to amalgam for permanent Class I and II restorations. It also promotes remineralization and prevents demineralization with an advanced ion-releasing system. When the pH drops because of the growth of the cariogenic bacteria, it releases hydroxide ions to help restore the pH balance. Hydroxide ions help to prevent tooth structure from being demineralized. The fluoride and calcium ions released help remineralize the tooth structure and prevent secondary caries.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
68
A new Alkasite material has been introduced with superior strength and bioactive ion release where it is considered the new alternative to amalgam.
Retention success rate % with modified USPH criteria
retention of the restoration, with USPH criteria
Time frame: 18 months with; T0=Baseline, T1= 6 months follow up, T2=12 months follow up and T3= 18 months follow up.
Marginal adaptation with modified USPH criteria marginal discolouration, recurrent caries, anatomic form and postoperative sensitivity.
marginal integrity of the restoration with USPH criteria
Time frame: 18 months with; T0=Baseline, T1= 6 months follow up, T2=12 months follow up and T3= 18 months follow up.
Postoperative sensitivity
Degree of post operative sensitivity with USPH criteria
Time frame: 18 months with; T0=Baseline, T1= 6 months follow up, T2=12 months follow up and T3= 18 months follow up.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.