Objective: To compare the long‐term microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to coronal dentin using pre‐endodontic dentin sealing (PEDS) and post‐endodontic adhesion (PEA) techniques under various endodontic irrigation protocols.Materials and Methods: Ten study groups (n = 10) were established based on the timing of adhesive application (PEDS versus PEA) and irrigation protocol: distilled water (control), 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA and 2% chlorhexidine, and a mixture of 3% NaOCl and 9% etidronic acid (HEDP). Specimens underwent μTBS testing after a six‐month microspecimen aging period. Fracture patterns were analyzed, and adhesive interfaces were assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical analysis employed a mixed linear regression model with a 5% significance level.Results: PEDS consistently preserved high bond strength across all irrigation protocols (57.4–59.5 MPa), while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigants resulted in significantly lower values (33.3–40.8 MPa; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed within the PEDS groups (p > 0.05). SEM analysis revealed consistent hybrid layers in PEDS and PEA/Control groups, while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigation solutions showed significant resin–dentin interface variations and interfacial gaps.Conclusions: The PEDS technique preserved high and consistent μTBS regardless of the irrigation protocol, whereas endodontically irrigated PEA groups exhibited significantly reduced bond strength. PEDS offers a predictable approach to optimizing adhesive performance in endodontic‐restorative treatments.Clinical Significance: Integrating PEDS into routine endodontic‐restorative workflow is recommended to enhance long‐term bond strength to coronal dentin. The PEDS technique ensures consistent adhesive performance regardless of the endodontic irrigation protocol, enhancing restorative predictability and treatment success while preserving tooth structure.

The widespread application of CAD/CAM technology in contemporary dentistry led to the development of promising restorative materials, such as resin composite blocks (RCBs). Thus, the present study aims to evaluate the mechanical properties of RCBs, comparing this material to the direct composite resin from the same manufacturer. Samples retrieved from three CAD/CAM resin composite blocks (Tetric CAD (TC), Ivoclar Vivadent, Grandio blocs (GB), VOCO GmbH and Brilliant Crios (BC), Coltene/Whaledent) and four direct composite resins (Tetric EvoCeram (TEC), Ivoclar Vivadent, GrandioSO (GS), VOCO GmbH, Brilliant EverGlow Translucent (BET) and Universal Shade (BEU), Coltene/Whaledent) were submitted to three-point bending flexural test and Vickers microhardness test. The resulting data of the flexural strength were analyzed using one-way ANOVA considering Bonferroni correction for post hoc tests (α = 0.05). The flexural modulus and Vickers microhardness results were analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA considering Games–Howell correction for post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Regarding results, flexural strength and flexural modulus values ranged from 81.1 MPa (BEU) to 246.5 MPa (GB) and 10.6 GPa (BEU) to 20.3 GPa (GB), respectively. GS (121.2) and GB (136.2) groups were associated with the highest microhardness values. According to the post hoc tests, statistically significant differences in flexure strength were found in RCBs (BC, GB, and TC) compared to all direct composite resins. Flexural modulus and Vickers microhardness of RCBs (BC, GB, TC) were also significantly different from the direct composite resin (BET, BED, and TEC), except when comparing GS and GB for microhardness. In conclusion, differences between RCBs and direct composite resins were observed regarding flexural strength, flexural modulus, and microhardness, revealing that RCBs have enhanced mechanical properties compared to direct composite resins.

Objective: To assess the influence of dentin airborne‐particle abrasion techniques on the microtensile bond strength, using two adhesive strategies (self‐etch and etch&rinse). Materials and Methods: Twenty molars were assigned to two groups ( n = 10) according to the bonding system (Clearfil SE Bond or Optibond FL), divided into four parts and submitted to different surface treatments: no pretreatment (control), airborne‐particle abrasion with aluminum oxide without irrigation (Al ₂ O ₃ ), airborne‐particle abrasion with aluminum oxide with irrigation (Al ₂ O ₃ /Aquasol), and airborne‐particle abrasion with bioactive glass 45S5 (BG45S5). Specimens underwent microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. Statistical analysis employed a linear mixed regression model, with a 5% significance level. Results: Statistically significant differences were found for both adhesive strategy ( p < 0.001) and pretreatment ( p < 0.001). Al ₂ O ₃ /Aquasol and Al ₂ O ₃ exhibit statistically significant differences compared to the control ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively), while BG45S5 did not differ significantly ( p = 0.080). SEM images reveal a smear layer with distinct density across groups, and diminished compactation whenever irrigation was used. Conclusions: Aluminum oxide with simultaneous irrigation resulted in the highest bond strength values, while without irrigation bond strength outcomes depend on the adhesive strategy. Bioactive glass did not interfere with bonding performance. Clinical Significance: Aluminum oxide airborne‐particle abrasion with concomitant irrigation presents the preferable surface pretreatment strategy when bonding to sound dentin.

The widespread implementation of new CAD/CAM materials has led to the necessity of establishing an adequate luting protocol. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and the film thickness of different luting methods on CAD/CAM resin blocks. Five Brilliant Crios CAD/CAM blocks (Coltene/Whaledent) were sequentially sectioned into two halves, air abraded with 50 µm aluminum oxide, and luted according to five different cementation protocols: Brilliant EverGlow (BEG), Brilliant EverGlow with ultrasound application (BEG-US), preheated Brilliant EverGlow (BEG-H), Brilliant EverGlow Flow (BEGF), and Duo Cem^® Trans (DC). Subsequently, the blocks were sectioned to obtain rods, which were then submitted to a microtensile bond strength test (n = 20). The surfaces were examined with optical microscopy to determine the failure mode and the bonding interface was assessed with scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Bond strength values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α = 0.05). The bond strength values varied with the different cementation protocols (p < 0.001): BEG (45.48 ± 18.14 MPa), BEG-US (42.15 ± 14.90 MPa), BEG-H (41.23 ± 15.15 MPa), BEGF (58.38 ± 15.65 MPa), and DC (81.07 ± 8.75 MPa). Regarding bond strength, DC presented significantly higher values than all other experimental groups (p < 0.050), whereas all luting methods using BEG presented similar values (p = 0.894). Adhesive failures were the predominant type. On SEM evaluation, all the luting materials presented a tight and homogeneous cement–block interface with variable film thicknesses. In conclusion, among the cementation protocols, the resin cement (DC) rendered the highest bond strength values. SEM analysis revealed that the lowest film thickness was associated with the flowable composite (BEGF).

Objective: To assess the biomechanical performance of the application of polyethylene fiber and fiber‐reinforced composite resins in direct restorations. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was performed in Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed on January 16th, 2025, with previously identified MeSH and free text terms by two independent authors. A total of 1127 papers were initially obtained. Exclusion criteria comprised nonrelevant materials, evaluation of pins and posts, material characterization, indirect or provisional restorations, and the use of artificial, animal, or immature teeth. Results: From the 754 studies remaining after duplicates removal, 679 were excluded after title and abstract screening, followed by the exclusion of 7 papers after full‐text assessment for eligibility. Additionally, 10 full texts were not obtained after requesting the authors. Therefore, a total of 58 studies were included in this scoping review. When compared to conventional composites, fiber‐reinforced composite resins proved to be beneficial in 82.1% of the articles, while polyethylene fibers improved the biomechanical performance in 91.7%. Conclusions: The individual application of fiber‐reinforced composite resins and polyethylene fibers demonstrates promising potential in dental direct restorations. No adverse biomechanical outcomes were reported, with findings either supporting their use or indicating no significant difference. Nevertheless, the results are ambiguous and insufficient to directly compare both materials or assess the effects of their combined use. It is recommended to establish standardized guidelines for future research to enhance the comparability of results, explore long‐term outcomes, and customize study designs to more closely resemble clinical settings. Clinical Significance: Fiber‐reinforced composite resins and polyethylene fibers have emerged in an attempt to improve the biomechanical performance of direct restorations. However, a comprehensive review of the existing literature is necessary to assess their influence on biomechanical outcomes and identify knowledge gaps, thereby guiding future research.