Purpose. Resin-based materials have been preheated by using different techniques and commercial devices. However, a consensus on the clinical protocol for cementing with preheated composite resins is lacking. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the different methods used for heating composite resins as used for cementing indirect adhesive restorations and to determine the benefits and limitations. Study Selection. A search was performed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and the nonpeer-reviewed literature database. Studies on preheating composite resins for cementing indirect restorations were included, with no restrictions on the type of study, year of publication, or language. The following data were extracted: preheating technique, the device used for preheating, preset temperature, and warming time. Results. In total, 304 studies were identified. After removing duplicates, 270 articles were selected, and 14 articles were included in the final evaluation. Half of the included studies reported similar preheating techniques using the Calset device for composite resins. The temperatures of 54°C and 68°C were most frequently reported, with a mean warming time of 5 minutes. Conclusions. Preheating composite resins for the cementation of indirect restorations reduces viscosity, but the material must be used promptly after removal from the device. Practical Implications. Different methodologies for preheating composite resins have been reported and used in clinical dental practice. To achieve good results and guide the clinician on use, the techniques for heating composite resins for cementation need to be standardized. Keeping the material warm until the restorative procedure, the thickness of the indirect restoration, and the composition of the composite resins can directly affect the outcome of the procedure.

Aim: To determine the effects of time and temperature on the viscosity of preheated composite resins. Materials and Methods: Eleven composite resins were heated to 60°C, and temperature analyses were performed at intervals of 1 min until they had cooled to 25°C. The permanent oscillatory shear test was performed at 25°C, 35°C, 50°C, and 60°C for three composite resins under a shear rate of 1s⁻¹. One- and two-way analysis of variance were used for the analysis (α = 0.05). Results: There was no significant interaction between the composite resin and time (P = 0.9304), and only the main effect time was significantly different (P < 0.0001). A difference was observed between T0 and T6 (P < 0.001), but not after T7. The increase in temperature resulted in a viscosity reduction (P < 0.05). At 25°C, Beautifil II presented higher viscosity. Palfique LX5 showed a significant viscosity reduction with increasing temperature compared with the others (P < 0.05). For Beautifil II and Z100, there was no difference at temperatures of 50°C and 60°C, while for Palfique LX5, no statistical difference was observed at 35°C, 50°C, and 60°C. Conclusions: Ten minutes of preheating were sufficient to reach a temperature of 60°C, reducing viscosity by at least 84%. However, 5 min after removal, the composite resin cooled to room temperature. Clinical Significance: Preheating composite resin has potential benefits. To determine how this approach will work in clinical practice, it is important to define the effects of time and temperature in the protocol of this technique and understand its limitations.

This study evaluated the influence of solvent evaporation conditions of acid-etching adhesives. The medium dentin of thirty extracted human third molars was exposed and bonded to different types of etch-and-rinse adhesives: 1) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP) ; water-based; 2) Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) ; ethanol/water-based, and 3) Prime & Bond 2.1 (PB) ; acetone-based. Solvents were evaporated at air-drying temperatures of 21ºC or 38ºC. Composite buildups were incrementally constructed. After storage in water for 24 h at 37ºC, the specimens were prepared for bond strength testing. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). SBMP performed better when the solvents were evaporated at a higher temperature (p < 0.05). Higher temperatures did not affect the performance of SB or PB. Bond strength at room temperature was material-dependent, and air-drying temperatures affected bonding of the water-based, acid-etching adhesive.