Short-Term Assessment of Cention N vs. Glass Ionomer Cement (Fuji IX) as a Definitive Restoration in the Primary Dentition of Mexican Children: A Pilot Study

Background Dental caries in primary dentition requires restorative materials that combine durability, strength, and therapeutic properties. Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are widely used, but their lack of stability sometimes limits their application. Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), an alkasite restorative material (ARM), is an attractive option due to its greater mechanical strength and ion-releasing capacity compared to GIC. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Cention N versus a high-viscosity GIC (Fuji IX, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) in primary tooth restorations, evaluating retention, fracture, and marginal color stability for the first six months after placement. Methods A quasi-experimental study was conducted in 16 patients (3-9 years old) with 36 restorations (Classes I, II, and V) in a public hospital in Mexico. Materials were assigned according to clinical criteria, ARM (n=28), with universal adhesive and light-curing, and GIC (n=8), following standard protocols. The variables evaluated were retention, fracture, and marginal color change, using monthly visual/tactile inspection. Statistical analysis employed frequencies, percentages, and Fisher's exact test (Stata Statistical Software: Release 14 (2015; StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, United States)). Results The mean age of participants was 7.29±1.53 years, ranging from three to nine years. The majority were male (62.5%). More ARM restorations were placed (n=28; 77.8%). Most cavities were Class V (30.6%). Regarding the clinical characteristics evaluated, fracture was observed in 8.3% of the restorations, color change occurred in 5.6%, and dislodgement occurred in 19.4%. Regarding the basal analysis of tooth type, number of restorations per tooth, sex, and age according to the type of restorative material used, no significant differences (p>0.05) were found. There were no significant differences in marginal color change (p>0.05). Regarding retention, ARM showed a significantly lower dislodgement rate (3.6%, 1/28) compared to GIC (75%, 6/8; p=0.000; Fisher's exact test). Regarding fracture resistance, no restorations with ARM presented fractures (0%, 0/28), while GIC recorded 37.5% (3/8) of fractures (p=0.008). Conclusion ARM showed better clinical performance in retention and structural integrity compared to GIC, without compromising margin aesthetics. Its mechanical properties make it a viable alternative for restorations in primary dentition. Longer-term studies are necessary to ascertain performance over a period of time that is closer to the expected restoration longevity for GIC and ARM.