COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF BIOCOMPATIBLE COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE TREATMENT OF DENTAL CARIES IN ADULT PATIENTS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Dental caries remains a major public health concern among adult po. pulations worldwide, despite significant advances in preventive and restorative dentistry. The development of biocompatible composite materials has transformed restorative approaches by combining esthetic performance with improved biological interaction. However, comprehensive comparative evaluations of these materials in adult patients remain limited.
This study aimed to comparatively assess the clinical effectiveness of biocompatible composite materials in the treatment of dental caries in adult patients, focusing on clinical performance, biological response, and patient-reported outcomes.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
How to Cite
References
1.Fejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidd EAM. Dental Caries: The Disease and Its Clinical Management. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.
2.Pitts NB, Zero DT, Marsh PD, et al. Dental caries. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17030.
doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.30
3.Frencken JE, Sharma P, Stenhouse L, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries. J Dent Res. 2012;91(2):S11–S17.
4.Schwendicke F, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, et al. Managing carious lesions: Consensus recommendations. J Dent Res. 2016;95(2):131–136.
5.Ferracane JL. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29–38.
6.Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):17–28.
7.Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances in polymerization shrinkage stress. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):38–52.
8.Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011;56(Suppl 1):59–66.
9.Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. Re-intervention in direct restorative dentistry. Br Dent J. 2009;206(11):581–587.
10.Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct restorations. Int Dent J. 2010;60(4):215–227.
11.Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, et al. Longevity and reasons for failure of composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):2–8.
12.Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101.
13.Mount GJ, Hume WR. Preservation and Restoration of Tooth Structure. 2nd ed. Brisbane: Knowledge Books and Software; 2005.
14.Saunders WP, Saunders EM. The effect of composite resin polymerization shrinkage. Br Dent J. 1992;173(2):68–71.
15.Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EAM. Dentine caries excavation: A review. Br Dent J. 2000;188(9):476–482.
16.Nicholson JW. Bioactive dental materials. J Dent. 2017;65:1–8.
17.Sauro S, Osorio R, Watson TF, et al. Influence of bioactive materials on dentin remineralization. Dent Mater. 2013;29(2):e61–e70.
18.Aljabo A, Xia W, Liaqat S, et al. Conversion, shrinkage stress and mechanical properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater. 2015;31(12):e1–e9.
19.Opdam NJM, Loomans BAC, Roeters FJM, et al. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composites. J Dent. 2004;32(8):607–614.
20.Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 30-year follow-up of three conventional resin composites. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):1232–1244.
21.Lynch CD, Opdam NJM, Hickel R, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites. J Dent. 2014;42(4):377–383.
22.Alvanforoush N, Palamara JEA, Wong RHK, et al. Stress development in resin composites. Dent Mater. 2018;34(10):e237–e247.
23.Wilson NHF, Burke FJT, Mjör IA. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care. 1997;4(1):5–11.
24.Sadeghi M. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior composite restorations. Dent Res J. 2009;6(2):51–55.
25.Coelho A, Amaro I, Rascão B, et al. Effect of composite resin formulation on clinical performance. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(5):1797–1808.
26.Marovic D, Tauböck TT, Attin T, et al. Monomer conversion and shrinkage stress. Dent Mater. 2015;31(9):1051–1064.
27.Yadav P, Mittal R, Malik S. Biocompatibility of dental restorative materials. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(9):ZE01–ZE04.
28.Hegde MN, Hegde P. Assessment of clinical performance of posterior composites. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15(3):243–247.
29.FDI World Dental Federation. Minimal intervention dentistry. Int Dent J. 2016;66(4):223–243.
30.Petersen PE. The World Oral Health Report. WHO Bull. 2003;81(9):661–669.