SUMMARY: Bulk-fill composites have been introduced to facilitate the placement of deep direct resin composite restorations. This study aimed at analyzing the cervical marginal integrity of bulk-fill vs incremental and open-sandwich class II resin composite restorations after thermomechanical cycling using replica scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and ranking according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Box-only class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars with the gingival margin placed 1 mm above and below the cemento-enamel junction. Eighty-four premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups, then subdivided into six restorative subgroups (n=7): 1-Tetric Ceram HB (TC) was used incrementally and in the open-sandwich technique with 2-Tetric EvoFlow (EF) and 3-Smart Dentin Replacement (SD). Bulk-fill restoratives were 4-SonicFill (SF), 5-Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN), and 6-Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). In subgroups 1-5, Tetric N-Bond self-etch and Tetric N-Bond total-etch adhesives were used, whereas in subgroup 6, AdheSE self-etch and ExciTE F total etch were used. One more group (n=7) was restored with Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative (P9) only in combination with its self-etch P90 System Adhesive. Materials were manipulated and light cured (20 seconds, 1600 mW/cm2), and restorations were artificially aged by thermo-occlusal load cycling. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were taken and poured with epoxy resin. Resin replicas were examined by SEM (200×) for marginal sealing, and percentages of perfect margins were analyzed. Moreover, samples were examined using loupes (3.5×) and explorers and categorized according to the FDI criteria. Results were statistically analyzed (SEM by Kruskal-Wallis test and FDI by chi-square test) without significant differences in either the replica SEM groups (p=0.848) or the FDI criteria groups (p>0.05). The best SEM results at the enamel margin were in TC+EF/total-etch and SF/total-etch and at the cementum margins were in SF/total-etch and TE/self-etch, while the worst were in TC/self-etch at both margins. According to FDI criteria, the best was TE/total-etch at the enamel margin, and the poorest was P9/self-etch at the cementum margin. Groups did not differ significantly, and there was a strong correlation in results between replica SEM and FDI ranking.

This review addresses the rationale of recurrent and/or residual caries associated with resin composite restorations alongside current strategies and evidence-based recommendations to arrest residual caries and restrain recurrent caries. The PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for composite-associated recurrent/residual caries focusing on predisposing factors related to materials and operator’s skills; patient-related factors were out of scope. Recurrent caries and fractures are the main reasons for the failure of resin composites. Recurrent and residual caries are evaluated differently with no exact distinguishment, especially for wall lesions. Recurrent caries correlates to patient factors, the operator’s skills of cavity preparation, and material selection and insertion. Material-related factors are significant. Strong evidence validates the minimally invasive management of deep caries, with concerns regarding residual infected dentin. Promising technologies promote resin composites with antibacterial and remineralizing potentials. Insertion techniques influence adaptation, marginal seal, and proximal contact tightness. A reliable diagnostic method for recurrent or residual caries is urgently required. Ongoing endeavors cannot eliminate recurrent caries or precisely validate residual caries. The operator’s responsibility to precisely diagnose original caries and remaining tooth structure, consider oral environmental conditions, accurately prepare cavities, and select and apply restorative materials are integral aspects. Recurrent caries around composites requires a triad of attention where the operator’s skills are cornerstones.

Objectives: This review article aims to describe some of the roles of Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in enamel, dentine, dental caries, hybrid layer degradation, pulp and periodontal tissues, throwing light on their current inhibitors. The article addresses the potential of MMPs to serve as biomarkers with diagnostic and therapeutic value. Design: The sections of this review discuss MMPs’ involvement in developmental, remodeling, degradational and turnover aspects of dental and periodontal tissues as well as their signals in the pathogenesis, progress of different lesions and wound healing of these tissues. The literature was searched for original research articles, review articles and theses. The literature search was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE for articles published in the last 20 years. Results: 119 published papers, two textbooks and two doctoral theses were selected for preparing the current review. Conclusions: MMPs are significant proteases, of evident contribution in dental and periapical tissue development, health and disease processes, with promising potential for use as diagnostic and prognostic disease biomarkers. Continuing understanding of their role in pathogenesis and progress of different dental, periapical and periodontal lesions, as well as in dentine-pulp wound healing could be a keystone to future diagnostic and therapeutic regimens.