NCT06211582

Brief Summary

The goal of this clinical trial comparatively investigate the clinical performances of 3 different tooth-colored restorative materials in the treatment of Class II cavities after 6 months and one year.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
47

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Aug 2022

Typical duration for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

August 28, 2022

Completed
1.4 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

January 9, 2024

Completed
9 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

January 18, 2024

Completed
1.1 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

February 28, 2025

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

February 28, 2025

Completed
Last Updated

December 5, 2025

Status Verified

November 1, 2025

Enrollment Period

2.5 years

First QC Date

January 9, 2024

Last Update Submit

November 30, 2025

Conditions

Keywords

Alkasite-basedPosterior resin compositeClass II restorationGlass Hybrid

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (13)

  • Surface gloss/lustre and roughness

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding surface gloss/lustre and roughness. Surface gloss/lustre and roughness was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed.Scores; 1: Comparable to enamel 2: Slightly dull, not noticeable from speaking distance 3: Dull surface but acceptable if covered with film of saliva 4: Rough surface, cannot be masked by saliva film, simple polishing is not sufficient 5: Quite rough, unacceptable plaque retentive surface

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Surface and marginal staining

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding surface and marginal staining. Surface and marginal staining was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: No marginal or surface staining 2: . Minor staining, easily removable 3: Moderate staining not noticeable from a speaking distance, also present on other teeth. Not aesthetically unacceptable 4: Surface staining recognizable from speaking distance. Or severe localized marginal staining not removable by polishing 5: Severe surface staining or unacceptable. Generalized and profound marginal discoloration.

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Colour match/stability and translucency

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding colour match/stability and translucency. Colour match/stability and translucency was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: Colour and translucency of the restoration have a clinically excellent match with the surrounding enamel 2: Minor deviations in shade between tooth and restoration are apparent 3: Clear deviation but acceptable. Does not affect aesthetics 4: Colour and/ or translucency are clinically unsatisfactory, recognisable from speaking distance 5: Colour match and/or translucency are clinically unsatisfactory

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Anatomic form

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding anatomic form. Anatomic form was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: Form is ideal 2: Form deviates slightly from the remainder of the tooth 3: Form differs but is not aesthetically displeasing 4: Anatomic form is altered, the aesthetic result is unacceptable 5: Anatomic form is unsatisfactory and/or lost

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Fracture of restorative material and retention

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding fracture of restorative material and retention. Fracture of restorative material and retention was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: Restoration retained, no fractures, cracks or chipping 2: Small hairline crack 3: Two or more or larger hairline cracks and/or chipping (not affecting the marginal integrity or proximal contact) 4: Chipping fractures affect marginal quality and/or proximal contacts; bulk fractures with or without partial loss of (\<1/2 of the restoration) 5: (Partial or complete) loss of the restoration

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Marginal adaptation

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding marginal adaptation. Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: Harmonious outline, no gaps, no discoloration 2: Small marginal chip fracture can be eliminated by polishing 3: Vertical/horizontal gap \<250 μm, easily perceptible with a blunt explorer with a tip diameter of 250 μm. Several small marginal fractures cannot be modified without damage and are unlikely to cause longterm effects 4: Vertical/horizontal gap \> 250 μm, may result in exposure of dentine or base 5: Restoration is loose but in situ

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Proximal contact point and food impaction

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding proximal contact point and food impaction. Proximal contact point and food impaction was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a dental floss and metal blades was performed. Scores; 1: Normal contact point (dental floss can be inserted but not 50 μm blade) 2: Slightly too strong but acceptable. Floss can only be passed with force 3: Slightly too weak (50 μm metal blade can pass easily whereas 100 μm \[two blades\] cannot) 4: 100 μm (two 50 μm metal blades) can easily pass and possible damage (food impaction) 5: Too weak and/ or clear damage (food impaction) and/or pain gingivitis

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Radiographic examination

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding radiographic examination. Radiographic examination was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians.Scores; 1: No pathology, harmonious transition between restoration and tooth 2: Small visible but acceptable excess and/or a positive/ negative step or gap \<150 μm 3: Gaps and/or positive/negative step \<250 μm 4: Gaps and/or positive/negative step \>250 μm and/or marked interradicular excess material 5: Gaps \>500 μm and/ or secondary caries or apical pathology, tooth/ restoration fracture

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Postoperative sensitivity and tooth vitality

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding postoperative sensitivity and tooth vitality. Postoperative sensitivity and tooth vitality was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores; 1: No hypersensitivity, normal vitality 2: Low hypersensitivity for a limited period of time, normal vitality 3: Premature/slightly more intense or delayed/weak hypersensitivity. No subjective complaints 4:Premature/very intense or extremely delayed/weak hypersensitivity with subjective complaints. Or negative sensitivity 5: Very intense, acute pulpitis or non vital tooth. Removal of restoration with or without immediate root canal treatment is required or the tooth must be extracted

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Recurrence of initial pathology (secondary caries)

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding recurrence of initial pathology (secondary caries). Recurrence of initial pathology (secondary caries) was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: No secondary or primary caries 2: Very small, localized demineralization area 3: Larger areas of demineralisation, preventive measures necessary (dentine not exposed) 4: Caries with cavitation 5: Deep secondary caries or exposed dentine that is not accessible for repair

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Tooth cracks and fractures

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding tooth cracks and fractures. Tooth cracks and fractures was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed. Scores; 1: Complete integrity 2: Minor marginal crack or a hairline crack which cannot be probed. The patient has no clinical symptoms 3: Enamel split or crack \<250 μm. No adverse effects 4: Major enamel split (gap \>250 μm or dentine/base exposed. Or crack\>250 μm (explorer penetrates) 5: Cusp or tooth fracture

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Localised reactions of soft tissue

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding localised reactions of soft tissue. Localised reactions of soft tissue in direct contact with the restoration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores; 1: Healthy mucosa adjacent to restoration 2: Healthy after minor removal of mechanical irritations (sharp edges etc.) 3: Alteration of mucosa but no suspicion of causal relationship with filling material 4: Suspected mild allergic, lichenoid or toxicological reaction 5: Suspected severe allergic, lichenoid or toxicological reaction

    From Baseline to 12 Month

  • Oral and somatic/ psychiatric symptoms

    Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using FDI criteria regarding oral and somatic/ psychiatric symptoms. Oral and somatic/ psychiatric symptoms in direct contact with the restoration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores; 1: No symptoms of adverse effects 2: Short-term minor transient symptoms 3: Minor oral and/or general symptoms of malaise 4: Persistent oral/general symptoms, recurrent symptoms 5: Acute/severe oral/general symptoms requires immediate replacement

    From Baseline to 12 Month

Study Arms (3)

Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)

EXPERIMENTAL

Powder: Calcium-fluoro-silicate glass, barium glass, calcium-barium-aluminium fluoro-silicate glass, iso-fillers, ytterbium trifluoride, initiators and pigments. Liquid: Dimethacrylates, initiators, stabilizers, additives and mint flavour. The mixing ratio was 2 parts powder and 2 drops of liquid or 3 parts powder and 3 drops.After distributing the powder and liquid side by side on a mixing pad, the liquid was spread to expand the surface.The first part of the powder was mixed with the entire liquid dispensed on the mixing pad.After the components have been thoroughly mixed, add the remaining powder and stirred again until a homogeneous consistency is obtained (45 - 60 seconds). After careful adaptation to the cavity and densification, occlusal excesses were removed.

Device: Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)

Equia Forte HT ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

EXPERIMENTAL

Powder: 95% strontium fluoroalumino-silicate glass. Liquid: 5% polyacrilic acid. Equia Forte HT was mixed in a capsule (10 seconds) and injected into the cavity. After a 2.5 min curing time, occlusal excesses were removed. Equia Coat (GC, Tokyo, Japan) was then applied and light-cured (D-Light Pro, GC, Tokyo, Japan 1,400 mW/cm2) for 20 seconds.

Device: Equia Forte HT ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

Gradia Direct Posterior ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

EXPERIMENTAL

Matrix: Urethanedimethacrylate (UDMA), dymethacrylate camphorquinone. Filler: fluoro-alumino-silicate glass silica powder. After completing the cavity, the enamel surface was selectively roughened using 37% orthophosphoric acid for 30 seconds. Subsequently, GC Solare Universal Bond adhesive agent (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) was utilized. It was applied in 2mm layers in accordance with the composite manufacturer's instructions. Each layer was polymerized for 20 seconds.

Device: Gradia Direct Posterior ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

Interventions

The Alkasite-Based Tooth-Colored Material

Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)

Glass Hybrid Restorative Material

Equia Forte HT ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

Conventional Composite Resin

Gradia Direct Posterior ( GC, Tokyo, Japan)

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 65 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Healthy individuals who do not have any systemic disease that prevents restorative treatment
  • Individuals between the ages of 18-65
  • Brushing your teeth twice a day
  • Having at least 20 teeth in occlusion and at least 3 approximal lesions with antagonist teeth in the opposite arch
  • Volunteer individuals who agree to participate in the research and sign the informed consent form and who have undergone initial periodontal treatment will be included in the study.

You may not qualify if:

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women
  • Individuals with advanced periodontal disease
  • Individuals using removable partial dentures
  • Individuals with bruxism
  • Individuals with malocclusion
  • Patients with known allergies to resin-based restorative materials and bonding agents
  • Patients with a history of allergy to local anesthesia
  • Endodontic treatment, teeth that need pulp capping or endodontic treatment is available

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Hacettepe University

Ankara, Ankara, 06100, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (2)

  • Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent. 2020 Mar;94:103175. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013. Epub 2019 Jul 25.

  • Bektas Donmez S, Uysal S, Dolgun A, Turgut MD. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;17(3):202-212.

Related Links

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Dental Caries

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Tooth DemineralizationTooth DiseasesStomatognathic Diseases

Study Officials

  • Filiz Yalçın Çakır, Prof.

    Hacettepe University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Uzay Koç Vural, Assoc. Prof.

    Hacettepe University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Kemal Işıklı

    Hacettepe University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
SINGLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Principal Investigator, Research Assistant

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

January 9, 2024

First Posted

January 18, 2024

Study Start

August 28, 2022

Primary Completion

February 28, 2025

Study Completion

February 28, 2025

Last Updated

December 5, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-11

Locations