The article is aimed at analyzing the available research and comparing the properties of bio-inductive materials in direct and indirect pulp capping procedures. The properties and clinical performances of four calcium-silicate cements (ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, RetroMTA, Biodentine), a light-cured calcium silicate-based material (TheraCal LC) and an enhanced resin-modified glass-ionomer (ACTIVA BioACTIVE) are widely discussed. A correlation of in vitro and in vivo data revealed that, currently, the most validated material for pulp capping procedures is still MTA. Despite Biodentine’s superiority in relatively easier manipulation, competitive pricing and predictable clinical outcome, more long-term clinical studies on Biodentine as a pulp capping agent are needed. According to available research, there is also insufficient evidence to support the use of TheraCal LC or ACTIVA BioACTIVE BASE/LINER in vital pulp therapy.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin in composite restorations. A bibliographic search was carried out until May 2020, in the biomedical databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Web of Science. The study selection criteria were: randomized clinical trials, in English, with no time limit, with a follow-up greater than or equal to 6 months and that reported the clinical effects (absence of fractures, absence of discoloration or marginal staining, adequate adaptation marginal, absence of post-operative sensitivity, absence of secondary caries, adequate color stability and translucency, proper surface texture, proper anatomical form, adequate tooth integrity without wear, adequate restoration integrity, proper occlusion, absence of inflammation and adequate point of contact) of restorations made with conventional and bulk resins. The risk of bias of the study was analyzed using the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sixteen articles were eligible and included in the study. The results indicated that there is no difference between restorations with conventional and bulk resins for the type of restoration, type of tooth restored and restoration technique used. However, further properly designed clinical studies are required in order to reach a better conclusion.

Since color matching is considered a subjective procedure, accurate shade choice is often the most challenging stage of recreating the natural appearance of teeth. Furthermore, accurate determination of tooth color is imperative for the final outcome of dental restorations. The purpose of this research is to assess the accuracy of color match between diverse shade selection methods throughout a systematic review and meta-analysis. Two independent investigators (L.H. and R.B.) screened the literature in five electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials or in vitro papers studying the effect of using either digital shade selection or visual shade selection on the accuracy of color match were included. A total of 13 manuscripts comprised the meta-analysis. Color difference ($\mathsf{\Delta }$E) between restorations where the shade matching was performed by the conventional method was greater than those where the shade matching was performed by computerized methods (p = 0.007). According to the subgroup analysis, only the use of digital photographs for shade matching showed a reduction in the ($\mathsf{\Delta }$E) (p < 0.0001), while the use of a spectrophotometer has no advantages over the use of visual shade guide tabs (p = 0.57). On the other hand, global analysis showed that incorrect shade matching was higher when the conventional method using shade guide tabs was used (p < 0.001), irrespective of whether a spectrophotometer or a digital camera was used (p < 0.001). This study concluded that the use of digital photography and spectrophotometric measurements led to fewer color differences and less incorrect shade matching than conventional methods using color shade tabs.

The central aim of adhesive dentistry is to improve the compatibility between current adhesives and a range of substrates by employing diverse application techniques. Therefore, the overarching objective of this review is to offer a comprehensive analysis of dentin bonding systems, starting with an introduction to adhesion and a detailed overview of enamel and dentin structures, their histology, and the impact of dentin structure on resin–dentin bonding. It covers the mechanisms of resin–dentin bonding, including resin adhesive application, bonding mechanisms, and factors influencing efficacy. Further, this review explores the composition of resin adhesive systems, including acidic components, cross-linking monomers, solvents, and other critical elements. It also examines various adhesive strategies—etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal adhesives—highlighting their applications and advantages. The review extends to clinical applications of dental adhesion, including direct restorations, indirect restorations, and immediate dentin sealing (IDS), demonstrating the practical implications of adhesive systems in enhancing restoration longevity and performance. In conclusion, despite significant advancements, no gold-standard method for optimal adhesion exists. Each adhesive system has distinct strengths and limitations. The review emphasizes the importance of evaluating methods for achieving durable adhesion and staying current with technological advancements in adhesive systems. Summary: This review provides a thorough analysis of dentin bonding systems, delving into the structures and bonding mechanisms of both enamel and dentin. By exploring various adhesive systems and their components, it highlights the ongoing challenges in achieving optimal resin–dentin adhesion. The review also addresses the clinical applications of dental adhesion, including direct restorations, indirect restorations, and immediate dentin sealing (IDS), illustrating how different adhesive techniques impact clinical outcomes. It underscores the necessity for continuous innovation and assessment of adhesive systems to enhance long-term bonding effectiveness in clinical practice.

This study aimed to identify the role of crosslinking agents in the resin–dentin bond strength (BS) when used as modifiers in adhesives or pretreatments to the dentin surface through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This paper was conducted according to the directions of the PRISMA 2020 statement. The research question of this review was: “Would the use of crosslinkers agents improve the BS of resin-based materials to dentin?” The literature search was conducted in the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Manuscripts that reported the effect on the BS after the use of crosslinking agents were included. The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager v5.4.1. The comparisons were performed by comparing the standardized mean difference between the BS values obtained using the crosslinker agent or the control group. The subgroup comparisons were performed based on the adhesive strategy used (total-etch or self-etch). The immediate and long-term data were analyzed separately. A total of 50 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, while 45 articles were considered for the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis suggested that pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), carbodiimide, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), glutaraldehyde, and riboflavin crosslinking agents improved the long-term BS of resin composites to dentin (p ≤ 0.02). On the other hand, the use of proanthocyanidins as a pretreatment improved both the immediate and long-term BS values (p ≤ 0.02). When incorporated within the adhesive formulation, only glutaraldehyde, riboflavin, and EGCG improved the long-term BS to dentin. It could be concluded that the application of different crosslinking agents such as carbodiimide, EDTA, glutaraldehyde, riboflavin, and EGCG improved the long-term BS of adhesive systems to dentin. This effect was observed when these crosslinkers were used as a separate step and when incorporated within the formulation of the adhesive system.

Resin matrix dental materials undergo contraction and expansion changes due to polymerization and water absorption. Both phenomena deform resin-dentin bonding and influence the stress state in restored tooth structure in two opposite directions. The study tested three composite resin cements (Cement-It, NX3, Variolink Esthetic DC), three adhesive resin cements (Estecem, Multilink Automix, Panavia 2.0), and seven self-adhesive resin cements (Breeze, Calibra Universal, MaxCem Elite Chroma, Panavia SA Cement Plus, RelyX U200, SmartCem 2, and SpeedCEM Plus). The stress generated at the restoration-tooth interface during water immersion was evaluated. The shrinkage stress was measured immediately after curing and after 0.5 h, 24 h, 72 h, 96 h, 168 h, 240 h, 336 h, 504 h, 672 h, and 1344 h by means of photoelastic study. Water sorption and solubility were also studied. All tested materials during polymerization generated shrinkage stress ranging from 4.8 MPa up to 15.1 MPa. The decrease in shrinkage strain (not less than 57%) was observed after water storage (56 days). Self-adhesive cements, i.e., MaxCem Elite Chroma, SpeedCem Plus, Panavia SA Plus, and Breeze exhibited high values of water expansion stress (from 0 up to almost 7 MPa). Among other tested materials only composite resin cement Cement It and adhesive resin cement Panavia 2.0 showed water expansion stress (1.6 and 4.8, respectively). The changes in stress value (decrease in contraction stress or built up of hydroscopic expansion) in time were material-dependent.