Composite materials are widely used in dentistry for direct tooth restorations. However, they are highly sensitive to the working technique employed during the restorative procedure. Even minor procedural errors can have a significant impact on the quality including the longevity of the restoration. Hence the aim of this study was to determine the material preferences and analyse the clinical problems associated with direct composite restorations in a cohort of dentists. A 20-item online questionnaire was created in English and administered 1830 general dentists and specialists in 13 countries. The first section of the questionnaire included four questions to elicit demographic data, and the second section comprised 16 questions focused on material preferences for conservative restorations, durability of composite restorations, and the most challenging stages the dentists faced during the composite restorative procedures. Respondents decided most often to use composite materials for the tooth restorations (OR 997.4, 95% CI 233.8-4254.8, P value <.001). Most respondents indicated that the durability of composite restorations was approximately 7 to 10 years (41.5%). Among the factors affecting durability, maintenance of a dry cavity was the most often reported reason (47.1%) and the foremost challenge faced by dentists (61.0%) during the composite restorative procedures. Our study confirmed that resin-based composites are the most popular material for direct restoration in many countries. Although working with this material is difficult and involves multiple steps, maintaining a dry cavity during bonding, and material application may affect the therapeutic success and durability of these restorations. Clinicians need to be attentive to this issue and be prepared to adapt their decision-making and consider opting for alternative restorative materials, if appropriate.

Resin-based composites (RBCs) evolved into favoured materials for teeth restorations, marking a significant change in dental practice. Despite many advantages, RBCs exhibit various limitations in their physical and chemical properties. Therefore, we assessed the dentists' awareness of possible complications after direct composite restorations and their opinions about this material. The online questionnaire was created in English in May 2023. A 16-item survey was dedicated to general dentists and specialists. The first section included four questions related to demographic characteristics. The second section comprised twelve questions and focused on awareness of potential side effects of composite restorations, the most crucial advantages and disadvantages of composite resins, and the frequency of experienced clinical complications after the application of composite materials. A total of 1830 dentists from 13 countries took part in the survey. Dentists most often declared awareness of low adhesion to the dentine (77.5%) and, most rarely, solubility in oral fluids (42.6%). Aesthetics was identified as the main advantage of composite fillings (79%), followed by the possibility of repair (59%) and adhesion to enamel (57%). Polymerisation shrinkage was a major disadvantage for most countries (70% overall). Analysing the declared potential clinical complications for all countries, statistically significant findings were obtained for marginal discolouration (OR=2.982, 95%CI:1.321-6.730, p-value=0.009) and borderline significance for secondary caries (OR=1.814, 95%CI:0.964-3.415, p-value=0.065). Dentists value aesthetics and repairability but are aware of shrinkage and experience discolouration. The issue of toxicity and solubility seems to be the least known to dentists. Dentists should use RBCs with critical caution due to possible side effects. Despite the undoubted aesthetics of direct composite restorations, it is necessary to remember potential clinical complications such as marginal discolouration or secondary caries.

The study goal was to provide an overview of antibiotic prescribing practices of Serbian dentists when treating endodontic infections and to disseminate the current ESE (European Society of Endodontology) recommendations to the study participants. A link to an online questionnaire was sent to 628 Serbian dentists whose email addresses were publicly available on the Internet, 158 of whom responded to the survey, resulting in a 25.16% response rate. The significance of possible associations was assessed via the Chi-squared test and Cramer’s V measure of association, with p < 0.05 considered as statistically significant. According to the study findings, 55.7% of respondents prescribed a 5-day antibiotic course. Moreover, Amoxicillin 500 mg was the first-choice antibiotic for 55.1% of the respondents, followed by Clindamycin 600 mg (18.4%). For patients allergic to penicillin, 61.4% of respondents prescribed Clindamycin. Statistically significant differences emerged only in relation to acute apical abscess with systemic involvement, whereby dentists aged 46–55 were least likely to prescribe antibiotics in these clinical situations (p = 0.04). Analyses further revealed that recommendations for safe antibiotic prescribing practices were not always followed, as in certain cases, patients were given antibiotics even when this was not indicated. These findings highlight the need for additional education on responsible antibiotic use to prevent bacterial resistance.