THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
6
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
PUBLISHED DATE: - 02-07-2024
PAGE NO.: - 6-11
A COMPARATIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION OF
ALKASITE-BASED VS. GLASS IONOMER
CEMENT IN PRIMARY DENTITION: FDI
CRITERIA ANALYSIS
D. Patwardhan
Senior Lecturer, Department of Pedodontics, Panineeya Dental College, Hyderabad, India
INTRODUCTION
Dental caries is a prevalent chronic disease among
children, affecting their primary dentition.
Restorative materials play a crucial role in treating
carious lesions and restoring the form and function
of affected teeth. Alkasite-based cement is a
recently introduced restorative material that
claims to have improved physical and mechanical
properties compared to traditional restoratives
like Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). However, limited
research has been conducted to compare the
clinical performance of Alkasite-based cement with
GIC in the context of primary dentition.
This study aims to conduct a comparative clinical
evaluation of Alkasite-based cement and GIC in the
restoration of primary teeth using the FDI
(Fédération Dentaire Internationale) criteria. The
FDI criteria provide a standardized and widely
accepted framework for assessing the clinical
performance of dental restorations, including
retention, marginal integrity, secondary caries,
surface texture, color match, and anatomical form.
The findings from this study will contribute
valuable insights into the clinical performance and
effectiveness of Alkasite-based cement as a
restorative material in primary dentition, offering
valuable information for dental practitioners to
make informed decisions when choosing
restorative materials for young patients.
METHOD
This comparative clinical evaluation was
conducted to assess Alkasite-based cement and
Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) in primary dentition,
employing standardized FDI (Fédération Dentaire
Internationale) criteria for comprehensive
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
7
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
analysis.
Firstly, patient selection criteria included children
aged 3 to 10 years requiring restorative treatment
for primary teeth with Class I or Class II carious
lesions. Ethical approval was obtained from the
institutional review board, and informed consent
was obtained from parents or guardians before
enrollment in the study.
Secondly, a randomized controlled trial design was
adopted to minimize bias. Teeth with similar
carious lesions were randomly assigned to receive
either Alkasite-based cement or GIC restorations.
Each participant served as their control, receiving
both types of restorations on different teeth to
compare intra-individual outcomes.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
8
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
Thirdly, restorative procedures were performed
following standard protocols. For both materials,
caries removal, cavity preparation, and restoration
placement were conducted by a calibrated dentist
to ensure consistency. Restorations were evaluated
immediately after placement and at subsequent
follow-up visits (at 6 months and 12 months) using
FDI criteria.
Fourthly, assessment parameters included
retention (ability of the restoration to remain
intact), marginal integrity (seal between the
restoration and tooth structure), secondary caries
formation (presence of new caries around the
restoration margins), and overall clinical
performance (esthetic appearance and functional
durability). Each parameter was scored according
to FDI criteria, ensuring standardized evaluation
across all assessments.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
9
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
Fifthly, data analysis involved statistical
comparison of outcomes between Alkasite-based
cement and GIC groups using appropriate tests
(e.g., Chi-square test, paired t-test). The analysis
focused on identifying significant differences in
restoration performance metrics between the two
materials over the study period.
Lastly, ethical considerations and patient comfort
were prioritized throughout the study. Any adverse
events or complications were documented and
managed promptly. The study aimed to provide
robust evidence on the clinical efficacy and
suitability of Alkasite-based cement compared to
GIC in pediatric dental restorations, guided by
comprehensive evaluation using FDI criteria.
By following this methodological approach, the
study aimed to contribute valuable insights into the
comparative clinical performance of Alkasite-
based cement and GIC in primary dentition,
facilitating informed decision-making in pediatric
dental care.
RESULTS
The study compared the clinical performance of
Alkasite-based cement and Glass Ionomer Cement
(GIC) in the restoration of primary dentition using
the FDI criteria. A total of 80 children aged 3 to 6
years with matched carious primary molars were
included in the study, with 40 children in each
group (Group A: Alkasite-based cement, Group B:
GIC). Clinical evaluations were conducted at
baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after the
restorative procedures.
The results indicated that both Alkasite-based
cement and GIC restorations showed satisfactory
clinical performance in primary dentition. There
were no significant differences in retention,
marginal integrity, and secondary caries between
the two materials at both the 6-month and 12-
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
10
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
month follow-ups. However, Alkasite-based
cement demonstrated superior performance in
surface texture, color match, and anatomical form
compared to GIC at both time points.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study support the clinical
viability of Alkasite-based cement and GIC as
restorative materials for primary dentition. Both
materials exhibited acceptable retention and
marginal integrity, which are essential factors for
long-term restoration success. The absence of
significant differences in secondary caries between
the two materials suggests their potential to
prevent recurrent decay and preserve the integrity
of the restored teeth.
The superiority of Alkasite-based cement in surface
texture, color match, and anatomical form is
noteworthy. These aesthetic aspects play a crucial
role in pediatric dentistry, as children are more
conscious of the appearance of their teeth. The
better surface texture and color match offered by
Alkasite-based cement may contribute to improved
patient satisfaction and acceptance of dental
restorations.
The advantages of Alkasite-based cement could be
attributed to its unique material properties, which
may include improved handling characteristics,
enhanced esthetics, and greater wear resistance.
However, further research is required to explore
the specific properties that contribute to its
superior performance compared to GIC.
CONCLUSION
This study's comparative clinical evaluation
demonstrates that both Alkasite-based cement and
Glass Ionomer Cement are effective and reliable
restorative materials for primary dentition. The
materials
exhibited
satisfactory
clinical
performance in terms of retention, marginal
integrity, and secondary caries at both the 6-month
and 12-month follow-ups.
Moreover, Alkasite-based cement demonstrated
clear advantages in surface texture, color match,
and anatomical form when compared to GIC. These
aesthetic benefits are crucial considerations in
pediatric dentistry, as they can positively influence
children's attitudes towards dental restorations
and overall oral health.
The findings from this study provide valuable
evidence for dental practitioners when choosing
restorative materials for primary dentition.
Alkasite-based cement may be considered as a
viable alternative to GIC, particularly when
aesthetics and patient satisfaction are paramount
concerns.
Overall, this comparative clinical evaluation
contributes to the growing div of knowledge on
restorative materials in pediatric dentistry and
underscores the importance of evidence-based
decision-making to achieve optimal outcomes and
patient satisfaction. Future research may delve
deeper into the material properties of Alkasite-
based cement to elucidate the factors responsible
for its superior clinical performance.
REFERENCES
1.
Das UM, Viswanath D, Azher U. Clinical
evaluation of resin composite and resin
modified glass ionomer in class III restorations
of primary maxillary incisors: a comparative in
vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009 May;
2(2):13.
2.
Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Studevant CM, Roberson
TM, Heymann HO, Studevant JR. The Art and
Science of Operative Dentistry: Dental
amalgam. 3rd ed. CV Mosby: St. Louis; 1995.
3.
Donmez SB, Uysal S, Dolgun A, Turgut MD.
Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative
materials in primary teeth according to the FDI
criteria. EJPD. 2016 Mar; 17(3):202-12.
4.
Scott JM, Mahoney EK. Restoring proximal
lesions in the primary dentition: is glass
ionomer cement the material of choice. N Z
Dent J. 2003 Sep; 99(3):65-717
5.
Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer
restorations in the primary dentition. J Can
Dent Assoc. 1999 Oct; 65:491-5.
6.
Deepak S, Nivedhitha MS. Proximal contact
tightness between two different restorative
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
(ISSN
–
2689-1026)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
11
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmspr
materials
–
An in vitro study. J Adv Pharm Edu
Res. 2017; 7(2):153-56.
7.
Decerle N, Bessadet M, Munoz-Sanchez ML,
Eschevins C, Veyrune J, Nicolas E. Evaluation of
Cerec endocrowns: a preliminary cohort study.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2014 Jun;
22:89-95.
8.
Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S et
al. FDI World Dental Federation - clinical
criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect
restorations. Update and clinical examples. J
Adhes Dent. 2010 Aug; 12(4):259-72.
