Comprehensive Dental Restorative Materials: A Narrative Review

Author

Dr. Althaaf Khan


Abstract

 Background: Restorative dentistry relies on a diverse and rapidly evolving range of materials, and clinicians must balance mechanical performance, adhesion, aesthetics, biocompatibility, longevity and cost when selecting among them. 

Objective: This narrative review summarises the composition, properties, indications, limitations and recent developments of the principal direct and indirect restorative materials used in contemporary clinical practice. 

Methods: Peer-reviewed literature, systematic reviews, consensus statements and international policy documents on dental amalgam, resin composites, glass ionomer cements, resin-modified glass ionomers, compomers, bioactive and ion-releasing materials, dental ceramics, CAD/CAM blocks and cast metal alloys were identified and synthesised qualitatively. 

Results and Discussion: Resin composites are now the dominant direct restorative material, supported by improving filler technology, bulk-fill systems and adhesive protocols, although polymerisation shrinkage and technique sensitivity remain important concerns. Glass ionomer-based materials offer chemical adhesion and fluoride release and are central to minimally invasive and public health approaches. Dental amalgam is declining under the Minamata Convention on Mercury, yet it retains a role where moisture control and cost are limiting. Indirect ceramics, particularly lithium disilicate and zirconia, combined with digital workflows, provide high strength and aesthetics. Bioactive materials show promise but require stronger long-term clinical evidence. 

Conclusion: No single material is universally superior. Optimal outcomes depend on case-specific selection, strict adherence to manufacturer and adhesive protocols, and integration of preventive care, while sustainability and the amalgam phase-down are reshaping material choice worldwide.



Keywords

dental restorative materials; resin composite; glass ionomer cement; dental ceramics; dental amalgam; adhesive dentistry



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  1. World Health Organization. Global oral health status report: towards universal health coverage for oral health by 2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.
  2. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2000;50(6):361-6.
  3. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, Leal SC, Gordan VV, Eden E. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries – a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J. 2012;62(5):223-43.
  4. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34(6):849-53.
  5. Bowen RL, inventor. Dental filling material comprising vinyl silane treated fused silica and a binder consisting of the reaction product of bis phenol and glycidyl acrylate. United States patent US 3,066,112. 1962 Nov 27.
  6. United Nations Environment Programme. Minamata Convention on Mercury: text and annexes. Nairobi: UNEP; 2013.
  7. Regulation (EU) 2024/1849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/852 on mercury as regards dental amalgam and other mercury-added products subject to export, import and manufacturing restrictions. Off J Eur Union. 2024 Jul 10;L:2024/1849.
  8. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations – update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):349-66.
  9. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA – a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5.
  10. Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Dental amalgam: an update. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(4):204-8.
  11. Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, Dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1043-50.
  12. Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD005620.
  13. Mackert JR Jr, Berglund A. Mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: absorbed dose and the potential for adverse health effects. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(4):410-36.
  14. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Opinion on the safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users (update). Brussels: European Commission; 2015.
  15. Ferracane JL. Resin composite – state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29-38.
  16. Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011;56 Suppl 1:59-66.
  17. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005;21(10):962-70.
  18. Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ. Polymerization stress – is it clinically meaningful? Dent Mater. 2016;32(1):1-10.
  19. Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(1):221-33.
  20. Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-9.
  21. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations – a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(5):407-31.
  22. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7-34.
  23. Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1089-103.
  24. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016;7(3):16.
  25. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56 Suppl 1:23-30.
  26. Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, Reis A, Rossi V. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations – an updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dent Mater. 2022;38(5):e109-35.
  27. Meyer JM, Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V. Compomers: between glass-ionomer cements and composites. Biomaterials. 1998;19(6):529-39.
  28. Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J. 2008;27(3):315-39.
  29. Jefferies SR. Bioactive and biomimetic restorative materials: a comprehensive review. Part 1. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26(1):14-26.
  30. Tiskaya M, Shahid S, Gillam D, Hill R. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: a critical review. Dent Mater. 2021;37(2):296-310.
  31. Jandt KD, Watts DC. Nanotechnology in dentistry: present and future perspectives on dental nanomaterials. Dent Mater. 2020;36(11):1365-78.
  32. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NRFA, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(3):227-35.
  33. Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for dental applications: a review. Materials (Basel). 2010;3(1):351-68.
  34. Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011;56 Suppl 1:84-96.
  35. Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P, Ruggiero G, Sorrentino R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):134.
  36. Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel zirconia materials in dentistry. J Dent Res. 2018;97(2):140-7.
  37. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):603-23.
  38. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: multiunit FDPs. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):624-39.
  39. Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Özcan M. Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(9):985-94.
  40. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44-56.
  41. Wataha JC. Alloys for prosthodontic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):351-63.
  42. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental materials. Berlin: Springer; 2009.
  43. Van Landuyt KL, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Yoshihara K, et al. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytic approach. Dent Mater. 2011;27(8):723-47.

 

 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons