Abstract:(1) Background: Restoring decayed teeth in young patients can be challenging. This calls for a simplification of the protocols through new biomaterials. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the marginal adaptation delivered by restorative materials applied on class II cavities by using a simplified protocol, before and after fatigue test, followed by the assessment of the internal adaptation. (2) Methods: Forty-eight human teeth were divided into six groups (n = 8). Dentinal fluid simulation was performed before restoring the class II cavities: Gr 1—adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty ES Super Low Flow), Gr 2—adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES standard), Gr 3—bulk fill self-adhesive composite (Surefil One), Gr 4—bioactive powder-liquid filling material (Cention Forte), Gr 5—universal adhesive (Adhese Universal) and nanohybrid composite resin (Tetric Powerfill); and control group (CT)—high-viscosity glass ionomer (Equia Forte). Marginal adaptation was observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and compared before and after a fatigue test consisting of repeated thermal and mechanical cycles. The specimens were then cut mesio-distally, and internal adaptation was undertaken using SEM again. Repeated measures and one way ANOVA followed by a Fisher's LSD test and Fisher's LSD post hoc test were used in order to compare the statistically significant differences among groups. (3) Results: As for the marginal adaptation after loading, Cention Forte (58%) and Equia Forte HT (53%) were statistically equivalent and presented the highest results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (32%) and Tetric Powerfill (27%), with Surefil One (8%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (7%) showing the worst results. In terms of internal adaptation, Cention Forte (85%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (74%) had the highest percentages of continuous margins. Tetric powerfill (56%) and Equia Forte HT (44%) showed statistically significantly lower results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (33%) and eventually Surefil One (17%). (4) Conclusions: This in vitro study showed promising results for the marginal and internal adaptation of alkasite dual cured Cention Forte in the restoration of class II cavities. This material could be considered an interesting restorative alternative for the restoration of deciduous teeth.

In vitro characterization of a novel resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers

Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation

Comparative study of two bioactive dental materials

Evaluation and Comparison of Fracture Strength and Fluoride Releasing Properties of New Alkasite Materials with Conventional Restorative Material, Bulk Fill Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement: An In-Vitro Study

Comparison of Water Sorption and Water Solubility Properties of Current Restorative Materials with Different Contents

In Vitro and in Vivo Efficacy of New Composite for Direct Pulp Capping

Characterization of Contemporary Conventional, Bulk-fill, and Self-adhesive Resin Composite Materials

Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites

A Comparative Study of the Repair Bond Strength of New Self-Adhesive Restorative Materials With a Resin Composite Material

Characterization of Experimental Nanoparticulated Dental Adhesive Resins with Long-Term Antibacterial Properties

Effect of Bioactive Filler Addition on the Mechanical and Biological Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer

Structural/Chemical Characterization and Bond Strength of a New Self-Adhesive Bulk-fill Restorative.

3D-printed resins for provisional dental restorations: Comparison of mechanical and biological properties

Comparative study of physical-chemical properties of bioactive glass ionomer cement

Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites

[Preparation and Stability Assessment of a New Resin Root Canal Filling Material].

Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

Shear Bond Strength and Color Stability of Novel Antibacterial Nanofilled Dental Adhesive Resins

Analysis of color stability and degree of conversion of different types of resin composites