Show source-provided references
1. Valdivia, A.D.C.M., Sánchez, M.d.l.A.V., Cortés, D.E.A., and Cortés, E.G. (2023). Oral Health: Fundamentals, Importance, and Perspectives. Human Teeth-From Function to Esthetics, IntechOpen.
10.5772/intechopen.111610 ↗2. Global Prevalence of Edentulism and Dental Caries in Middle-Aged and Elderly Persons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104335 ↗4. Banihashem Rad, S.A., Esteves-Oliveira, M., Maklennan, A., Douglas, G.V., Castiglia, P., and Campus, G. (2024). Oral Health Inequalities in Immigrant Populations Worldwide: A Scoping Review of Dental Caries and Periodontal Disease Prevalence. BMC Public Health, 24.
10.1186/s12889-024-19354-4 ↗5. The Evolving Landscape of Dental Restorative Material: A Mini Review
6. Dental Amalgam Phase-Down—Status, Alternatives, Strategies and Preparedness for Implementation: A Review
10.1155/ijod/6688410 ↗7. Will the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Follow the EU’s Mercury Dental Amalgam Ban? A Mini-Review
8. Singer, L., Fouda, A., and Bourauel, C. (2023). Biomimetic Approaches and Materials in Restorative and Regenerative Dentistry. BMC Oral Health, 23.
10.1186/s12903-023-02808-3 ↗11. Spagnuolo, G. (2022). Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status. Materials, 15.
10.3390/ma15062016 ↗12. Resin-Based Composites for Direct and Indirect Restorations: Clinical Applications, Recent Advances, and Future Trends
13. Ranking Analysis of Tribological, Mechanical, and Thermal Properties of Nano Hydroxyapatite Filled Dental Restorative Composite Materials Using the R-Method
10.1002/pat.70010 ↗15. Panetta, A., Lopes, P., Novaes, T.F., Rio, R., Fernandes, G.V.O., and Mello-Moura, A.C.V. (2024). Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth—An Umbrella Review. J. Funct. Biomater., 15.
10.3390/jfb15020048 ↗18. Smart Materials Leading to Restorative Dentistry: An Overview
19. Abozaid, D., Azab, A., Bahnsawy, M.A., Eldebawy, M., Ayad, A., Soomro, R., Elwakeel, E., and Mohamed, M.A. (2025). Bioactive Restorative Materials in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions. Odontology, 1–29.
10.1007/s10266-025-01162-w ↗20. Marovic, D., Par, M., Posavec, K., Marić, I., Štajdohar, D., Muradbegović, A., Tauböck, T.T., Attin, T., and Tarle, Z. (2022). Long-Term Assessment of Contemporary Ion-Releasing Restorative Dental Materials. Materials, 15.
10.3390/ma15124042 ↗21. Is Cention-N Comparable to Other Direct Dental Restorative Materials? A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.014 ↗22. Cention-N: A Comprehensive Review
23. An Update on Cention N: An Aesthetic Direct Bulk-Fill Restorative Material
24. The impact of CENTION-N compared to glass-ionomer cement on shear bond strength and micro-leakage of primary teeth restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
10.1007/s44445-025-00049-4 ↗25. In vitro evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N and its comparison with resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorative material as used in primary teeth
10.1155/2024/9420336 ↗26. Comparison of Antibacterial Activity and Fluoride Release in Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials: Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer, Zirconomer, Giomer, and Cention N
10.4103/1735-3327.363534 ↗27. Cention N Compared to Other Contemporary Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials in Terms of Fluoride Ion Releasing Efficacy: Validation of a Novel Caries-Prevention-Initiative by the Ministry of Health, Malaysia
10.13005/bpj/2406 ↗29. In Vivo Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Cention N and Glass Ionomer Cement in Proximal Restorations of Primary Molars
10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_108_21 ↗31. Alkasite Restorative Material for Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
10.5395/rde.2024.49.e24 ↗32. Clinical Performance of an Alkasite-Based Bioactive Restorative in Class II Cavities: A Randomized Clinical Trial
10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0025 ↗33. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical Trial
34. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews
10.1136/bmj.n71 ↗37. Evaluation of New Alkasite Based Restorative Material for Restoring Non-Carious Cervical Lesions-Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
38. Clinical Performance of Two Ion-releasing Bulk-fill Composites in Class I and Class II Restorations: A Two-year Evaluation
10.1111/jerd.13193 ↗39. Periodontal Evaluation for a New Alkasite Restorative Material in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized-controlled Clinical Trial
10.1002/cre2.70025 ↗40. 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
10.1007/s40368-023-00788-0 ↗41. Kaur, K., Suneja, B., Jodhka, S., Saini, R.S., Chaturvedi, S., Bavabeedu, S.S., Alhamoudi, F.H., Cicciù, M., and Minervini, G. (2023). Comparison between Restorative Materials for Pulpotomised Deciduous Molars: A Randomized Clinical Study. Children, 10.
10.3390/children10020284 ↗42. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Three Different Glass Hybrid Restorations in High Caries Risk Patients: A Randomized Control Trial
10.3889/oamjms.2022.10354 ↗43. New Dual-Cure Resin-Based Material in Occlusal and Occluso-Proximal Restorations of Primary Teeth: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2173 ↗44. Derchi, G., Marchio, V., Giuca, M.R., and Lardani, L. (2022). Clinical Performance of CentionTM Alkasite Restorative Material vs. Glass Ionomer Cement Used in Deciduous Teeth: One-Year Evaluation. Appl. Sci., 12.
10.3390/app122110845 ↗45. An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-Fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study
46. Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Following Restoration of Class I Lesions with Different Restorative Materials: An In Vivo Study
10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3085 ↗47. Wear of an Ion-Releasing Powder/Liquid Polymer Resin in Relation to That of Glass-Ionomer and Conventional Resin Composites
48. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Microleakage Properties of Cention-N, Composite, and Glass Ionomer Cement Restorative Materials
10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2837 ↗50. Nanofilled Resin Composite Properties and Clinical Performance: A Review
10.2341/17-208-T ↗51. Evaluation and Comparison of Physical Properties of Cention n with Other Restorative Materials in Artificial Saliva: An In Vitro Study
10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2383 ↗53. Dental Composite Resin: A Review of Major Mechanical Properties, Measurements and Its Influencing Factors
10.1002/mawe.202100326 ↗54. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Three Different Direct Restorative Materials (Silver Amalgam, Glass Ionomer Cement, Cention N), in Class II Restorations Using Stereomicroscope: An In Vitro Study
10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_481_17 ↗55. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage around Class V Cavities Restored with Alkasite Restorative Material with and without Bonding Agent and Flowable Composite Resin: An In Vitro Study
10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17 ↗57. Wiriyasatiankun, P., Sakoolnamarka, R., and Thanyasrisung, P. (2022). The Impact of an Alkasite Restorative Material on the pH of Streptococcus mutans Biofilm and Dentin Remineralization: An in Vitro Study. BMC Oral Health, 22.
10.1186/s12903-022-02354-4 ↗58. Fluoride Exchange by Glass-Ionomer Dental Cements and Its Clinical Effects: A Review