-
Journal of Dental Research Mar 2023There have been significant advances in adhesive dentistry in recent decades, with efforts being made to improve the mechanical and bonding properties of resin-based... (Review)
Review
There have been significant advances in adhesive dentistry in recent decades, with efforts being made to improve the mechanical and bonding properties of resin-based dental adhesive materials. Various attempts have been made to achieve versatility, introducing functional monomers and silanes into the materials' composition to enable the chemical reaction with tooth structure and restorative materials and a multimode use. The novel adhesive materials also tend to be simpler in terms of clinical use, requiring reduced number of steps, making them less technique sensitive. However, these materials must also be reliable and have a long-lasting bond with different substrates. In order to fulfill these arduous tasks, different chemical constituents and different techniques are continuously being developed and introduced into dental adhesive materials. This critical review aims to discuss the concepts behind novel monomers, bioactive molecules, and alternative techniques recently implemented in adhesive dentistry. Incorporating monomers that are more resistant to hydrolytic degradation and functional monomers that enhance the micromechanical retention and improve chemical interactions between adhesive resin materials and various substrates improved the performance of adhesive materials. The current trend is to blend bioactive molecules into adhesive materials to enhance the mechanical properties and prevent endogenous enzymatic degradation of the dental substrate, thus ensuring the longevity of resin-dentin bonds. Moreover, alternative etching materials and techniques have been developed to address the drawbacks of phosphoric acid dentin etching. Altogether, we are witnessing a dynamic era in adhesive dentistry, with advancements aiming to bring us closer to simple and reliable bonding. However, simplification and novelty should not be achieved at the expense of material properties.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Bonding; Resin Cements; Acid Etching, Dental; Dental Materials; Materials Testing; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Dentin; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36694473
DOI: 10.1177/00220345221145673 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023The cementation of indirect restoration is one of the most important steps in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. Cementation aims to bond the prosthetic restoration... (Review)
Review
The cementation of indirect restoration is one of the most important steps in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. Cementation aims to bond the prosthetic restoration to the prepared enamel or enamel and dentine. Successful cementation protocols prevent biofilm formation at the margin between tooth and restoration and minimize mechanical and biological complications. With the advancements in dental cements, they have been modified to be versatile in terms of handling, curing, and bond strengths. This review presents updates on dental cements, focusing on the composition, properties, advantages, limitations, and indications of the various cements available. Currently, dental restorations are made from various biomaterials, and depending on each clinical case, an appropriate luting material will be selected. There is no luting material that can be universally used. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the physical, mechanical, and biological properties of luting materials in order to identify the best options for each case. Nowadays, the most commonly used dental cements are glass-ionomer and resin cement. The type, shade, thickness of resin cement and the shade of the ceramic, all together, have a tangible influence on the final restoration color. Surface treatments of the restoration increase the microtensile bond strength. Hence, the proper surface treatment protocol of both the substrate and restoration surfaces is needed before cementation. Additionally, the manufacturer's instructions for the thin cement-layer thickness are important for the long-term success of the restoration.
Topics: Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Biocompatible Materials; Glass Ionomer Cements; Cementation; Dental Cements; Surface Properties; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36838607
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28041619 -
Dental Materials Journal Jan 2020This review scientifically compares the properties of zirconia and titanium, but does not identify the best among them as an implant material. Surface treatment and... (Review)
Review
This review scientifically compares the properties of zirconia and titanium, but does not identify the best among them as an implant material. Surface treatment and modification to improve tissue bonding and inhibit bacterial adhesion are not considered in this review. The mechanical properties of titanium are superior to those of zirconia; some studies have shown that zirconia can be used as a dental implant, especially as an abutment. Extensive surface treatment research is ongoing to inhibit bacterial adhesion and improve osseointegration and soft tissue adhesion phenomena which make it difficult to evaluate properties of the materials themselves without surface treatment. Osseointegration of titanium is superior to that of zirconia itself without surface treatment; after surface treatment, both materials show comparable osseointegration. The surface morphology is more important for osseointegration than the surface composition. To inhibit bacterial adhesion, zirconia is superior to titanium, and hence, more suitable for abutments. Both materials show similar capability for soft tissue adhesion.
Topics: Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Osseointegration; Surface Properties; Titanium; Zirconium
PubMed: 31666488
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-172 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2019At present, researchers in the field of biomaterials are focusing on the oral hard and soft tissue engineering with bioactive ingredients by activating body immune cells... (Review)
Review
At present, researchers in the field of biomaterials are focusing on the oral hard and soft tissue engineering with bioactive ingredients by activating body immune cells or different proteins of the body. By doing this natural ground substance, tissue component and long-lasting tissues grow. One of the current biomaterials is known as bioactive glass (BAG). The bioactive properties make BAG applicable to several clinical applications involving the regeneration of hard tissues in medicine and dentistry. In dentistry, its uses include dental restorative materials, mineralizing agents, as a coating material for dental implants, pulp capping, root canal treatment, and air-abrasion, and in medicine it has its applications from orthopedics to soft-tissue restoration. This review aims to provide an overview of promising and current uses of bioactive glasses in dentistry.
Topics: Animals; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Materials; Dentistry; Glass; Humans; Tissue Engineering
PubMed: 31783484
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20235960 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.
Topics: Bias; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34387873
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Mar 2020Recent advances in the field of endodontics have greatly improved the outcome and success rate of dental materials. For last three decades, there has been great interest... (Review)
Review
Recent advances in the field of endodontics have greatly improved the outcome and success rate of dental materials. For last three decades, there has been great interest in the development of bioactive dental material with the ability to interact and induce surrounding dental tissues to promote regeneration of pulpal and periradicular tissues. As these bioactive materials are mainly based on calcium silicates, they are also referred to as Calcium Silicate materials. The first material introduced was Mineral Tri-oxide Aggregate, which, due to its favourable biological properties, gained importance initially. However, later, due to its drawbacks, liked is colouration, long setting time and difficult manipulation, several modifications were done and newer bioactive materials, such as Biodentine, BioAggregate, Endosequence, Calcium-Enriched Mixture etc., were developed. The main applications of these materials are for pulp capping (direc t/indirec t), pulpotomy, perforation repair, resorption defects, apexogenesis and as retrograde filling materials, apexification and endodontic sealers. This review discusses the various types of bioactive materials, their composition, setting mechanism, and literature evidence for current applications.
Topics: Bone Substitutes; Calcium Compounds; Calcium Hydroxide; Dental Materials; Humans; Hydroxyapatites; Regenerative Endodontics; Silicates
PubMed: 32207434
DOI: 10.5455/JPMA.16942 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Mar 2022Bulk-fill resin composites are a special group of restorative materials designed to reduce chair time needed to insert a direct composite restoration. However, other...
OBJECTIVE
Bulk-fill resin composites are a special group of restorative materials designed to reduce chair time needed to insert a direct composite restoration. However, other factors determine the clinical success of a restorative material. Clinically the major reasons for failure of direct restorations are secondary caries and fracture of the restoration or the tooth itself. In the long-term composite resin restorations in posterior teeth may be prone to wear. As bulk-fill materials have their own composition that will determine their mechanical properties, the wear resistance may be affected as well. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wear of bulk-fill composites in comparison with a conventional hybrid composite. The null hypothesis was that there are no differences between the four bulk-fill materials and one traditional highly filled nanohybrid composite for posterior use when subjected to a two-body wear rate test and hardness measurement.
METHODS
Four bulk-fill composites SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR), X-tra base (XBA), FiltekBulk Fill (FUP), Dual-Curing Bulk Composite (FBFL) and conventional nanohybrid resin composite Grandio (GDO) subjected to a two-body wear test against a stainless steel (SS) antagonist wheel. Scanning Electron Microscopy analysis was performed to detect the surface alterations. Microhardness of all samples was tested (n = 5) with a Vickers diamond indenter (5 indentations in each specimen). One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (P < 0.01) were used to analyze differences in wear values. The hardness data were submitted to one-way ANOVA test, followed by the Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05). T-test was applied to compare wear rate in time interval between one day and one month.
RESULTS
The highest wear rate values were recorded for SDR and the lowest wear rate values were for GDO. Hardness was the highest for GDO and the lowest for FBFL.
SIGNIFICANCE
The bulk-fill composites have a higher wear rate and lower hardness than the conventional nanohybrid composite, making them less suitable for stress-bearing restorations.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Hardness; Materials Testing
PubMed: 34972580
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.138 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Jun 2020Bulk-fill composite resin are simple to operate, and they reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage compare to traditional resin-based composites. However, their... (Review)
Review
Bulk-fill composite resin are simple to operate, and they reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage compare to traditional resin-based composites. However, their clinical application could be affected by numerous factors, such as the material itself, light curing, placement techniques, storage condition, and preheating. This review aimed to summarize the definitions, classifications, indications, clinical properties, and influencing factors of the clinical application of bulk-fill resin-based composites and discuss the ways to improve their clinical effectiveness.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Materials Testing; Polymerization; Surface Properties
PubMed: 32573127
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2020.03.001 -
Dental Materials Journal Oct 2022One technique for placing of resin-based composite for large posterior cavities is the use of short fiber-reinforced resin-based composite (SFRC) to replace dentin in a... (Review)
Review
One technique for placing of resin-based composite for large posterior cavities is the use of short fiber-reinforced resin-based composite (SFRC) to replace dentin in a biomimetic approach. As endurance under mastication cycles is a significant consideration in the clinical success of resin-based composite posterior restorations, the use of SFRC as a base material may prevent restorative fracture due to the fibers' effectiveness in stopping cracks. This review article specifies the characteristics of SFRC and describes the major underlying mechanisms of short fiber reinforcement for resin-based composite. Insights are further taken from laboratory studies used to define the short fiber-related properties of resin-based composite and the performance of currently available materials, focusing on aspects that are relevant to the reinforcement of resin-based composite. Finally, future standpoints on the development of SFRCs with nano fibers and different resin monomers, and their role in digital dentistry, are discussed.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Materials Testing
PubMed: 35858793
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2022-080 -
Medicine Oct 2019Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative...
Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative material are superior to those of all-ceramic restorative materials, and chipping caused by chewing hard foods could be avoided. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations.A total of 46 patients requiring posterior teeth restorations involving 49 teeth were treated with monolithic zirconia crown procedure. The treatment results were evaluated according to the modified California Dental Association criteria immediately after the procedure, and at 2, 24, 48, and 96 weeks after the procedure. The plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, crown marginal integrity, and attrition of the abutment teeth, antagonist teeth, corresponding contralateral teeth, and antagonist of the corresponding contralateral teeth were assessed. The patients were followed for up to 96 weeks.The marginal adaptation results of all 46 patients were evaluated as excellent, resulting in an excellent rate of 100%. Regarding the crown color match, only 3 cases (6.1%) were evaluated as acceptable. Marginal adaptation, anatomic form, crown margin integrity, color match, and gross fracture did not show significant differences compared with the different time points (P = .999). Surface texture at different time did not change significantly (P = .807). During the 96-week follow-up, 1 crack in the antagonist teeth was found in 1 patient. There were no significant differences in wear of the antagonist teeth at different time points (P = .972). The rate of "excellent" evaluation for crown restorations was 93.9% to 100%.The monolithic zirconia crown had no detectable adverse effects on the periodontal tissues, and the antagonist teeth attrition was small. Therefore, it has good potential in the clinical application of posterior teeth restorations in the short term.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Health Surveys; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Female; Humans; Male; Zirconium
PubMed: 31577743
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017385