Clinical trial NCT06195449 - References

Tooth Decay — Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Alkasite Restorative Material Versus Glass Ionomer Cement

Citation(s)

•   1
  Class, V., Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different restorative materials (Cention N, Zirconomer improved and Glass hybrid restorative system) in Class V cavity restoration using stereomicroscope: In vitro study.
•   2
  Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Ryge Criteria for Direct Clinical Evaluation of Restoration. 1995.
•   3
  Dodiya, P.V., et al., Clinical evaluation of cention-n and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of noncarious cervical lesion. J Dent Specialities, 2019. 7(1): p. 3-5.
•   4
  Roulet, J., et al., In vitro wear of two bioactive composites and a glass ionomer cement. DZZ International, 2019. 1(1): p. 24-30.
•   5
  Minocha, A., et al., Comparative evaluation of Cention N and Amalgam in Class II posterior restorations. UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2021. 7(1).
•   8
  Attia, R., et al., Clinical Performance of Alkasite Dental Material and High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Class I Cavities. Comparative Study for One Year Follow Up. Egyptian Dental Journal, 2022. 68(4): p. 3881-3894.
•   9
  Derchi, G., et al., Clinical Performance of CentionTM Alkasite Restorative Material vs. Glass Ionomer Cement Used in Deciduous Teeth: One-Year Evaluation. Applied Sciences, 2022. 12(21): p. 10845.
•   Arora D, Jain M, Suma Sogi HP, Shahi P, Gupta I, Sandhu M
  In vivo evaluation of clinical performance of Cention N and glass ionomer cement in proximal restorations of primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2022 Jan-Mar;40(1):23-29. doi: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_108_21.
•   Bepu, D
  , et al., Alksite-based material to restore endodontically treated teeth: A randomized controlled clinical trial. 2023.
•   Hegazi, R
  I., W.E. Jamil, and A. Fawzy, Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial. Dental Science Updates, 2023. 4(1): p. 171-183.
•   Mushtaq U, Mushtaq F, Thakur D, Rathee K, Poonia N, Khullar S
  Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Following Restoration of Class I Lesions with Different Restorative Materials: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021 Jun 1;22(6):650-654.
•   Pooja MP, Karuna YM, Rao A, Suman E, Natarajan S, Suprabha BS
  Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of an Alkasite Restorative Material and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars: An In vivo Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2022 Apr-Jun;13(2):113-117. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_345_20. Epub 2022 Jun 21.
•   Sharma H, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A, Kotian H
  Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar teeth of children: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2023 Jun;24(3):301-311. doi: 10.1007/s40368-023-00788-0. Epub 2023 Mar 22.

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Alkasite Restorative Material Versus Glass Ionomer Cement in Restoration of Primary Molars: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Details for clinical trial NCT06195449