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.

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.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the dentin shear bond strength (SBS) and bonding interface of three recently developed “universal” resin luting cements based on different modalities.Methods: The dentin SBS and interfacial analysis of three recently launched “universal” resin luting cements, namely, G-Cem One, RelyX Universal and Panavia SA cement universal, were studied. All bonding protocols, including the previous use of their dedicated primer or universal adhesive in touch-cure mode or light-cure mode were performed. Variolink Esthetic LC used in conjunction with Scotchbond Universal Plus was used as a control group. For each group (n = 9), 10 specimens were tested for dentin SBS and two were examined by scanning electron microscopy. SBS were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test.Results: SBS values showed that the three “universal” resin luting cements tested exhibit different adhesive behaviors. G-Cem One with its touch-cure activated primer had a greater SBS to dentin (25.5 MPa) than that of the control group (22.1 MPa).Conclusion: “Universal” resin luting cements have variable efficacy when used in self-curing mode. The touch-curing mode is also of concern but may show high potential for some formulations.

The purpose of this study was to rank the risk factors for dental caries among first-year university students in Nice (France). All first-year students are required to undergo a compulsory preventive medical examination. Among these students, volunteers were offered a dental visit. Information was collected through an interview followed by an oral examination. We assessed the volunteers’ oral hygiene habits (daily toothbrushing frequency, type of toothbrush used, frequency of toothbrush replacement, place of toothpaste purchase, and flossing), daily health-related behaviors (number of main daily meals, daily sugary intakes, smoking, alcohol consumption, consumption of cannabis or other drugs), oral-health-related behaviors (self-reported oral health, dental visits during the past year, reason for the last dental consultation, and failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons), and oral health issues (dental crowding, oral hygiene, presence of caries, presence of pit and fissure sealant remnants). The dependent variable was the presence of at least one untreated carious lesion. The data were subjected to univariate analyses to select explanatory variables, and subsequently, a logistic regression was performed. Six hundred twenty-nine students aged 18.8±1.6 years were enrolled in this study. The sex ratio was 0.72, with a strong predominance of the female gender. Only 59.3% of the students had never experienced dental caries, while 22.4% had already undergone restorative procedures and did not have any carious lesion at the time of the examination, and 11.6% presented with carious lesions and had never been treated by a dentist. Lastly, 6.7% had carious lesions despite evidence of prior restorative procedures. The multivariate analysis revealed the following pejorative risk factors: failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons (OR:3.06, 95% CI: 1.40–6.70), poor oral hygiene revealed during the oral examination (OR:2.59, 95% CI: 1.60–4.20), and poor self-reported oral health (OR:2.43, 95% CI: 1.24–4.77). Conversely, the analysis revealed the following protective factors: preventive visits to the dentist (OR:0.63, 95% CI: 0.41–0.99), the use of an electric toothbrush (OR:0.36, 95% CI: 0.17–0.77), and sealant remnants (OR:0.22, 95% CI: 0.05–0.97). The highest-ranking caries risk factor for the study population was the financial barrier.