Abstract Objectives: To compare one-year clinical performance of Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and High Viscosity Glass Ionomer (Equia Forte Fil) as a restoration of class one cavities Materials and Methods: Sixty class I cavities (30 for each evaluated restorative material) were selected. The teeth were prepared, restored, finished and polished by one operator using Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Clinical evaluation was performed with the aid of a dental mirror and explorer at baseline (1 week after the restoration), 6 months, and 12 months for anatomic form, surface texture, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, and retention using modified USPHS criteria. Results: Regarding all tested criteria, there was no significant difference in the clinical performance within the groups of tested materials or between the groups from baseline to 12 months. Conclusion: Both tested materials showed acceptable clinical performance in the restoration of class I cavities after 12 months. Abstract Objectives: To compare one-year clinical performance of Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and High Viscosity Glass Ionomer (Equia Forte Fil) as a restoration of class one cavities Materials and Methods: Sixty class I cavities (30 for each evaluated restorative material) were selected. The teeth were prepared, restored, finished and polished by one operator using Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Clinical evaluation was performed with the aid of a dental mirror and explorer at baseline (1 week after the restoration), 6 months, and 12 months for anatomic form, surface texture, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, and retention using modified USPHS criteria. Results: Regarding all tested criteria, there was no significant difference in the clinical performance within the groups of tested materials or between the groups from baseline to 12 months. Conclusion: Both tested materials showed acceptable clinical performance in the restoration of class I cavities after 12 months. Abstract Objectives: To compare one-year clinical performance of Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and High Viscosity Glass Ionomer (Equia Forte Fil) as a restoration of class one cavities Materials and Methods: Sixty class I cavities (30 for each evaluated restorative material) were selected. The teeth were prepared, restored, finished and polished by one operator using Alkasite Dental Material (Cention–N) and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Clinical evaluation was performed with the aid of a dental mirror and explorer at baseline (1 week after the restoration), 6 months, and 12 months for anatomic form, surface texture, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, and retention using modified USPHS criteria. Results: Regarding all tested criteria, there was no significant difference in the clinical performance within the groups of tested materials or between the groups from baseline to 12 months. Conclusion: Both tested materials showed acceptable clinical performance in the restoration of class I cavities after 12 months.