Adhesive restorative materials: a review

'Adhesive' restorative dentistry originated with the work of Buonocore in 1955 in bonding resin to etched enamel. Since then, adhesive materials and techniques have developed at a rapid rate. The first chemically adhesive material (zinc polycarboxylate cement) was marketed in the late 1960s, and glass-ionomer cements and dentine bonding agents have since become available. This review focuses on the latter two products. Glass-ionomer cements have a particular role in adhesive dentistry because of their reliable chemical adhesion to enamel and dentine, and because of their apparent ability to promote the remineralization of 'affected' dentine. Dentine bonding agents have undergone marked changes in presentation over the last 15 years, but all have an essentially similar bonding system, that of hybrid layer formation. However, the most recent systems have limited clinical data supporting their use.     

Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: a review

Hybrid restorative materials comprising resins and components of conventional glass ionomers have been widely introduced and accepted by the dental profession in recent years. These include the resinmodified glass ionomer cements and the polyacidmodified resin composites or compomers. They are developed in an attempt to overcome the problems of traditional restoratives, such as moisture sensitivity and reduced early strength, while at the same time maintaining their clinical advantages of command setting, adhesion to tooth structures, adequate strength to occlusal load, fluoride release and aesthetics. This paper reviews the development, composition and properties, of these new materials. Their clinical performance appears to be promising and they should be considered as good alternatives to amalgam and other conventional restorative materials in the future.     

Dental restorative composite materials: A review

BackgroundThis review article discusses the effect of reinforcements in the parent dental restorative materials that results in enhanced performance in real-time situations.HighlightThe review article includes the details of the properties of different reinforced dental composite materials such as mechanical strength, thermal properties, physical/chemical properties, tribological performance.ConclusionIt revealed that nanofiller particles enhance the properties of various dental composite materials. The hybrid dental composites also contribute significantly in increasing the mechanical and tribological properties. A silane-treated filler improved the dental composite bonding strength.     

Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review

The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique or approach for the restoration of primary and permanent teeth has been widely adopted in, but not limited to, developing countries. However, the requirement for the placement of the restorative materials under often less-than-ideal conditions imposes significant restrictions on their selection; and there have been very few randomized clinical trials or reports comparing different types of restorative materials and treatments. Although conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) have relatively poor mechanical and adhesive strengths, their satisfactory biological features, ease of use, and low costs are distinct advantages. Most of the published reports of the clinical performance of the newer, high-strength esthetic conventional GICs specifically marketed for the ART approach have been from short-term studies. Satisfactory clinical performance has been demonstrated for single-surface posterior restorations only, over three years. Findings indicate that further improvements in restorative materials are still required for their use with the ART approach, together with further clinical investigations of the remineralization of shallow open caries lesions, as an alternative to placing definitive restorations.     

3D printing restorative materials using a stereolithographic technique: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo present through a systematic review a qualitative analysis of studies published on stereolithography-based 3D printing of restorative materials and their clinical applicability.MethodsThe literature search was conducted based on the question: “What is the state-of-the-art of available restorative materials for 3D printing based on stereolithography?" Online search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) with no restriction for year of publication. Data are reported based on PRISMA, including publication details such as authors and their countries, year and journal of publication, and study design. The synthesis is focused on describing the dental restorative materials and properties evaluated, applied methods, 3D printers used and clinical applicability.ResultsStudies that fit the inclusion criteria were performed in Asia (21), Europe (16) and USA (10), mostly using polymer-based restorative materials (38) for 3D printing constructs. Stereolithographic-printed ceramic-based restorative structures were evaluated by 9 studies. Many studies reported on dimensional accuracy (14), strength (11) and surface morphology (9) of the printed structures. Antibacterial response, cytotoxicity, internal and marginal fit, fracture and wear resistance, density, viscosity, elastic modulus, hardness, structural shrinkage and reliability, degree of conversion, layer cure depth, fatigue, and color were also evaluated by the included studies. Many of them (11) published a proof of concept as an attempt to demonstrate the clinical feasibility and applicability of the technology to print restorative materials, but only 5 studies actually applied the 3D printed restorative structures in patients, which highlights an increasing interest but limited early-stage translation.SignificanceThe fast expansion of stereolithographic-based 3D printing has been impressive and represents a great technological progress with significant disruptive potential. Dentistry has demonstrated an incredible willingness to adapt materials, methods and workflows to this promising digital technology. However, esthetic appearance, wear resistance, wet strength and dimensional accuracy are the main current clinical limitations restricting the progression to functional part production with 3D printing, which may explain the absence of clinical trials and reports on permanent/definitive dental restorative materials and structures.     

Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry

Impression materials are used to record intraoral structures for the fabrication of definitive restorations. Accurate impressions are necessary for construction of any dental prosthesis. The relationship between static and mobile oral structures must be reproduced accurately for an optimum cast. The more common types of impressions are used for fabricating diagnostic and master casts. Accurate impressions depend on identifying the applications that do or do not fit each material's characteristics. Materials used without adequate knowledge of their characteristics can impair a successful outcome. Often, the choice of impression materials depends on the subjective choice of the operator based on personal preferences and past experience with particular materials.     

Biological testing of dental restorative materials in vitro—a review

In vitro methods for the biological evaluation of dental restorative materials are discussed, with particular reference to the type of cells used, the physical state of the test material, the method of establishing cell-material contact, and the criteria of cytotoxicity. It is postulated that in vitro methods should provide a reliable assessment of the toxicity of dental restorative materials, but since the current in vitro methods do not mimic in vivo conditions sufficiently closely, the correlation between in vitro and in vivo results is at present poor. The development of in vitro methods more closely simulating in vivo circumstances is advocated.     

The adverse effects of dental restorative materials — a review

Several materials used in dentistry are described as biomaterials. Owing to the intimate contact of these materials with the oral tissues, they should possess a high degree of biocompatibility. However, some materials may exhibit adverse effects, causing both local and general pathological changes, even though the occurrence seems to be relatively low. It is, therefore, the dentist's responsibility to be aware of the potential adverse effects of these materials and to take precautions to protect the patient form such effects. The purpose of this article is to review the potential adverse effects of some commonly used restorative materials, mainly with regard to patients.     

Composite resin: a versatile, multi-purpose restorative material

Introduced more than some 50 years ago, composite resin technology has simplified the manner in which clinicians practice restorative dentistry, offering greater predictability and improved physical properties. Decades of material science and laboratory development along with clinical trials in human subjects have culminated in composite resin being validated as a reliable, multifunctional restorative material. With a wide range of composite resins available today, clinicians can benefit from knowing the infrastructure of a given material in order to determine which type will work best in a particular clinical situation.     

Fluoride-containing restorative materials

Dental practitioners are exposed to an increasing number of dental materials, which claim the benefits of fluoride release. The purpose of this paper is to critically review the literature of these materials. Glass ionomers, resin modified glass ionomers, compomers, resin composites, fissure sealants and amalgam are discussed. It is clear that a long-term measurable release of fluoride can be observed from certain restorative materials, in vitro, particularly glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, fluoridated cements, fluoridated dental amalgam and certain fissure sealants. In general, the rate of fluoride release is not constant but exhibits a relatively rapid initial rate, which decreases with time. However, the fluoride release profiles may be dependent on specific formulation and on experimental design and sampling methods. These materials may feature greater longevity, a reduced incidence of marginal failure, an elevated concentration of fluoride in contingent plaque, together with an antibacterial action when compared with non-fluoride releasing materials. In addition, fluoride-releasing materials may perform better in caries inhibition in artificial caries model studies than non-fluoridated materials. While any, or all, of these anti-cariogenic effects may be associated with fluoride release, a direct relationship between fluoride release profiles and such effects has not been determined in vivo.