Resin composite and glass ionomer cement (GIC) are the most commonly used dental materials to perform direct restorations. Both have specific characteristics that explain their popularity and their limits. More than 20 years ago, the first attempt (followed by others) to combine the advantages of these two families was performed with compomers, but it was not very successful. Recently, new formulations (also called ‘smart materials’) with claimed ion release properties have been proposed under different family names, but there are few studies on them and explanations of their chemistries. This comprehensive review aims to gather the compositions; the setting reactions; the mechanical, self-adhesive, and potential bulk-fill properties; and the ion release abilities of the large existing families of fluoride-releasing restorative materials and the new restorative materials to precisely describe their characteristics, their eventual bioactivities, and classify them for an improved understanding of these materials. Based on this work, the whole GIC family, including resin-modified and highly viscous formulations, was found to be bioactive. Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, AG, Schaan, Lietschentein) is the first commercially available bioactive resin composite.

In this comprehensive review, the current state of the art and recent advances in 3D printing in dentistry are explored. This article provides an overview of the fundamental principles of 3D printing with a focus on vat photopolymerization (VP), the most commonly used technological principle in dental practice, which includes SLA, DLP, and LCD (or mSLA) technologies. The advantages, disadvantages, and shortcomings of these technologies are also discussed. This article delves into the key stages of the dental 3D printing process, from computer-aided design (CAD) to postprocessing, emphasizing the importance of postrinsing and postcuring to ensure the biocompatibility of custom-made medical devices. Legal considerations and regulatory obligations related to the production of custom medical devices through 3D printing are also addressed. This article serves as a valuable resource for dental practitioners, researchers, and health care professionals interested in applying this innovative technology in clinical practice.

The restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) remains a significant challenge in modern dentistry. These teeth often suffer from substantial structural damage due to both the original pathology and the invasive nature of endodontic procedures. Consequently, ETT are more susceptible to fractures compared to vital teeth, necessitating restorative strategies that can effectively restore both function and aesthetics while minimizing the risk of failure. In recent years, advances in adhesive dentistry and the development of high-strength ceramics have further expanded the restorative options for ETT. Bonded restorations have gained popularity as they preserve more tooth structure and enhance the overall strenght of the tooth-restoration complex. The choice of restorative material and technique is influenced by numerous factors, including the amount of remaining tooth structure, the functional requirements of the tooth, and the aesthetic demands of the patient. Despite the plethora of available materials and techniques, the optimal approach to restoring ETT remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. In this comprehensive review, the current state of and recent advances in restoring damaged endodontically treated teeth are explored. Numerous therapeutic options exist, involving a wide range of materials. This article aims to present the biomaterial advancements of the past decade and their applications, offering alternative approaches to treating damaged ETT with the goal of prolonging their retention on the dental arch and serving as a valuable resource for dental practitioners who face this issue daily.

This study aims to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a direct resin composite to CAD-CAM resin composite blocks treated with different surface treatments: micromechanical, chemical or a combination of both. Eight CAD-CAM resin composite blocks, namely Brilliant Crios, Cerasmart 270, Vita Enamic, Grandio block, Katana Avencia, Lava Ultimate, Tetric CAD and Shofu Block HC were chosen. The micromechanical surface treatment protocols tested were hydrofluoric acid, polyacrylic acid or sandblasting, and the chemical one was a universal primer. These treated CAD-CAM blocks were tested to determine the SBS of a light-curing composite resin Z100 bonded to their surface. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was used to investigate the difference in SBS. Failures were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test. Bonding interfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The micromechanical surface treatments give the highest SBS values: sandblasting appears to be the most efficient procedure for dispersed filler composite blocks, while hydrofluoric acid etching is preferable for polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) blocks. The use of universal primer does not improve SBS values on dispersed filler composite blocks. For PICN blocks, the use of universal primer significantly increases SBS values when combined with hydrofluoric acid etching.

The adhesive–resin composite pair has been the cornerstone of direct restorations in dentistry for many years. Resin composites are traditionally classified in three ways based on their inorganic structure, their organic composition and their viscosity. While these classifications have long been associated with the optical, mechanical, and clinical properties of resin composites, recent studies indicate that this classification is not always valid. In recent years, a significant expansion of the range of clinical resin composite families has occurred, each with varying degrees of validation through in vitro and clinical studies. As a result, new resin composites with distinct structures, viscosities, and clinical indications have emerged. Despite this progress, a formal classification of the clinical features of all resin composites is still lacking, leading to terminological inconsistencies in research and potential confusion among clinicians. This brief review, supported by an exhaustive search of the dental literature, proposes a new clinical classification system for resin composites based on their key clinical features to help clinicians and researchers easily identify the key clinical characteristics of formulations. This modular classification, encompassing eight main families and 14 characteristics, is particularly suited to future developments, as current trends aim to simplify procedures by integrating multiple formulations into single products.