Submit to Materials Review for Materials Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Materials (ISSN 1996-1944). This special issue belongs to the section "Biomaterials".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 May 2022) | Viewed by 15032

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Dohyun Kim

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
Interests: restorative dental materials; traumatic dental injuries; ultrasound in dentistry; CAD/CAM in dentistry
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Prof. Dr. Sung-Ho Park

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
Interests: esthetic restorative materials; adhesive dentistry; light curing unit; tooth bleaching; Doppler ultrasound

Prof. Dr. Yooseok Shin

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Korea
Interests: esthetic restorative materials; digital dentistry

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue on “Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry” aims to provide recent knowledge and relevant insights into current resin-based composite materials used in clinical restorative dentistry.

Labortory or preclinical studies on mechanical, chemical, optical, and biological properties of these materials, as well as clinical studies on clinical performance and outcome in various aspects of these materials (e.g., esthetics, sensitivity, longevity) are all welcome.

Potential topics include but not limited to:
Conventional or bulk-fill direct restorative materials;
Indirect restorative materials such as CAD/CAM blocks;
Dental adhesives;
Resin-based adhesive luting cements;
Novel resin-based composite materials with antibacterial or bioactive properties;
Light curing units for polymerization of resin-based composite materials.

It is our pleasure to invite you to submit a manuscript for the Special Issue.

Prof. Dr. Dohyun Kim
Prof. Dr. Sung-Ho Park
Prof. Dr. Yooseok Shin
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Materials is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

restorative dentistry
resin-based composites
direct restorations
indirect restorations
CAD/CAM blocks
dental adheseives
adhesive luting cements
light curing units

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (6 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

16 pages, 4545 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

by Vincent Fouquet, François Lachard, Sarah Abdel-Gawad, Elisabeth Dursun, Jean-Pierre Attal and Philippe François

Materials 2022, 15(14), 5018; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15145018 - 19 Jul 2022

Cited by 11 | Viewed by 1892

Abstract

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. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 5586 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effect of Novel Bioactive Glass-Containing Dentin Adhesive on the Permeability of Demineralized Dentin

by Hyun-Jung Kim, Ji-Hyun Jang, Sang Uk Woo, Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Sun-Young Kim, Jack L. Ferracane, Jung-Hwan Lee, Dongseok Choi, Samjin Choi, Soogeun Kim, Ayoung Bang and Duck-Su Kim

Materials 2021, 14(18), 5423; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185423 - 19 Sep 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3040

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a novel bioactive glass (BAG)-containing dentin adhesive on the permeability of demineralized dentin. Bioactive glass (85% SiO₂, 15% CaO) was fabricated using the sol-gel process, and two experimental dentin adhesives were prepared with 3 wt% silica (silica-containing dentin adhesive; SCA) or BAG (BAG-containing dentin adhesive; BCA). Micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) test, fracture mode analysis, field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) analysis of adhesive and demineralized dentin, real-time dentinal fluid flow (DFF) rate measurement, and Raman confocal microscopy were performed to compare SCA and BCA. There was no difference in μTBS between the SCA and BCA (p > 0.05). Multiple precipitates were evident on the surface of the BCA, and partial occlusion of dentinal tubules was observed in FE-SEM of BCA-approximated dentin. The DFF rate was reduced by 50.10% after BCA approximation and increased by 6.54% after SCA approximation. Raman confocal spectroscopy revealed an increased intensity of the hydroxyapatite (HA) peak on the dentin surface after BCA application. The novel BAG-containing dentin adhesive showed the potential of both reducing dentin permeability and dentin remineralization. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1243 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study

by Walter Dukić, Mia Majić, Natalija Prica and Ivan Oreški

Materials 2021, 14(15), 4283; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154283 - 31 Jul 2021

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 2195

Abstract

This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria (p = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01), color match (p = 0.004), and marginal adaptation (p = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01) and marginal adaptation (p < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1966 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effect of Bioactive Glass-Containing Light-Curing Varnish on Enamel Remineralization

by Hyun-Jung Kim, So-Yeon Mo and Duck-Su Kim

Materials 2021, 14(13), 3745; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14133745 - 4 Jul 2021

Cited by 12 | Viewed by 2673

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of novel experimental light-curing bioactive glass (BAG)-containing varnish on enamel remineralization. An experimental light-curing, BAG-containing varnish and two commercial varnishes (Nupro White Varnish; Dentsply International, York, PA, USA and Tooth Mousse; GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used. Microhardness tests (n = 3), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) coupled with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) (n = 5), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis (n = 5) were performed to compare the remineralization effect of three varnishes with and without ultrasonication. The data of microhardness test were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc comparison (P < 0.05). Microhardness of demineralized enamel increased after the application of three varnishes (P < 0.05). The experimental BAG-containing varnish showed the highest microhardness among the three varnishes (P < 0.05). Ultrasonication decreased microhardness of Tooth Mousse and BAG-containing varnish groups (P < 0.05). FE-SEM and XRD revealed precipitates of hydroxyapatite (HAP) or fluorapatite (FAP) crystals of three varnishes. The novel experimental BAG-containing varnish may be a promising clinical strategy for the remineralization of early carious lesions or demineralized enamel surfaces. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 3879 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Push-Out Bond Strength Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin Post Cemented with Self-Adhesive Resin Cement Using Different Adhesive Bonding Systems

by Yoon Lee, Junghyun Kim and Yooseok Shin

Materials 2021, 14(13), 3639; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14133639 - 29 Jun 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2224

Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of fiber-reinforced resin posts using self-adhesive cements with different adhesive systems. A total of 50 single-rooted human maxillary premolars with fully developed apices and 15–16 mm straight root canals were selected. The teeth were divided into 10 groups with coronal and apical parts according to the adhesive bonding system and luting material used: one universal adhesive with MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement; another universal adhesive with MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement; universal primer with MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement; universal primer with dual-cure resin cement; MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement only (Control). Each specimen was subjected to a fatigue load of 600,000 cycles using a chewing simulator with sliding movement and cut horizontally for push-out bond strength testing. Statistical evaluation consisted of a one-way ANOVA test using SPSS v23.0. The highest bond strength (7.05 MPa) was obtained in the coronal part of the Single Bond universal group treated with MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement and the lowest strength (4.77 MPa) was observed in apical part of MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement group (Control). However, the one-way ANOVA results showed no significant difference between all 10 groups (p > 0.05). The self-adhesive cement without adhesive bonding showed no statistically different value compared to self-adhesive cements with adhesive bonding. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 2121 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effect of Varying Working Distances between Sandblasting Device and Composite Substrate Surface on the Repair Bond Strength

by Phoebe Burrer, Amanda Costermani, Matej Par, Thomas Attin and Tobias T. Tauböck

Materials 2021, 14(7), 1621; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14071621 - 26 Mar 2021

Cited by 13 | Viewed by 2030

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of defined working distances between the tip of a sandblasting device and a resin composite surface on the composite–composite repair bond strength. Resin composite specimens (Ceram.x Spectra ST (HV); Dentsply Sirona, Konstanz, Germany) were aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5–55 °C) and one week of water storage. Mechanical surface conditioning of the substrate surfaces was performed by sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles (50 µm, 3 bar, 10 s) from varying working distances of 1, 5, 10, and 15 mm. Specimens were then silanized and restored by application of an adhesive system and repair composite material (Ceram.x Spectra ST (HV)). In the negative control group, no mechanical surface pretreatment or silanization was performed. Directly applied inherent increments served as the positive control group (n = 8). After thermal cycling of all groups, microtensile repair bond strength was assessed, and surfaces were additionally characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). The negative control group reached the significantly lowest microtensile bond strength of all groups. No significant differences in repair bond strength were observed within the groups with varying sandblasting distances. Composite surfaces sandblasted from a distance of 1 mm or 5 mm showed no difference in repair bond strength compared to the positive control group, whereas distances of 10 or 15 mm revealed significantly higher repair bond strengths than the inherent incremental bond strength (positive control group). In conclusion, all sandblasted test groups achieved similar or higher repair bond strength than the inherent incremental bond strength, indicating that irrespective of the employed working distance between the sandblasting device and the composite substrate surface, repair restorations can be successfully performed. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Resin-Based Composite Materials for Restorative Dentistry

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (6 papers)

Research

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI