Abstract
With the phasing down of dental amalgam use in response to the Minamata Convention, it is likely that resin-based composite restoratives will be the dental material of choice for the direct restoration of compromised dentition in the UK, at least for the foreseeable future. The current materials have a finite lifespan, with failures predominately due to either secondary caries or fracture. Consequently, there is considerable in vitro research reported each year with the intention of producing improved materials. This review describes the recent research in materials designed to have low polymerisation shrinkage and increased mechanical properties. Also described is research into materials that are either antimicrobial or are designed to release ions into the surrounding oral environment, with the aim of stimulating remineralisation of the surrounding dental tissues. It is hoped that by describing this recent research, clinicians will be able to gain some understanding of the current research that will potentially lead to new products that they can use to improve patient treatment in the future.
Key points
-
Provides an overview of recent research developments aimed at improving the performance of resin-based composites.
-
Details the recent developments in monomers and fillers to produce resin-based composites that either have lower polymerisation shrinkage or better mechanical properties compared to current commercially available products.
-
Describes recent research on developing resin-based composites that can act as potential sources of antimicrobial or remineralising agents.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
With the phasing out of dental amalgams, resin-based composite (RBC) restoratives will be the dental material of choice for the direct restoration of compromised dentition in the UK, at least for the foreseeable future.1,2 With much better colour-matching to the surrounding dentition and more conservative cavity preparation typically required for RBCs compared with dental amalgams,3 they are already a popular choice for many practitioners worldwide.4,5 Despite this, the UK is still an area of high dental amalgam use, particularly in the publicly funded sector.6,7 The best results with RBCs are obtained when using rubber dam and acid-etch bonding,8 which can increase treatment times; clinicians worry that the extra time and expense involved means that the NHS will have to modify the fee payment structure if dental amalgam is replaced.6 Despite dental amalgams and RBCs apparently performing equally well in small and large load-bearing restorations,4,9 there remain concerns that RBCs have a relatively shorter lifespan than dental amalgams and many UK clinicians report a lack of confidence in using RBCs, compared to dental amalgams, for use in complicated procedures.10 When RBC failures occur, they are mostly due to secondary caries or fracture.2,11 Consequently, most laboratory RBC research tends to focus on trying to make improvements to combat one or both of these. This review is intended to bring together some of the main themes in this research, with a view to offer the practising clinician some indication as to how the current research may lead to improved RBCs in the future.
Brief history
The historical development of RBCs has been comprehensively summarised previously.11,12 Briefly, the major developments in RBCs can be most conveniently divided into developments in the monomers, the fillers and the initiators. It is often considered that the development of the higher molecular weight difunctional monomer, bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) by Bowen in the early 1960s started the development of modern RBCs. This high molecular weight led to a reduced polymerisation shrinkage compared to acrylic resins. Additionally, the stronger monomer backbone and crosslinking during polymerisation gave improved mechanical properties in the finished restoration. However, BisGMA is highly viscous, meaning diluent monomers such as triethylene glycol dimethacrylate were needed to lower viscosity, which meant manipulation of the RBC was easier and higher filler loadings could be achieved. Subsequently, other monomers such as urethane dimethacrylate and ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate were developed, but BisGMA's superior mechanical properties mean that most currently available RBCs contain at least some BisGMA.
Higher concentrations of filler led to improved mechanical properties and lower polymerisation shrinkage, in general as a result of a reduced monomeric resin constituent. However, different approaches were taken to achieve higher filler loadings leading to different classes of RBCs being developed, such as microfills and hybrids. Particle sizes were reduced to the sub-micron scale, long before the advent of the so-called nanocomposites. There was often similarity in the particle sizes used for the filler in these classes, with the differences in products really based on the filler concentration and how the fillers were produced and incorporated in the resin matrix. Consequently, clinicians had a variety of composite classes they could use to restore a variety of conditions, with the RBC classes based on the manufacturers' marketing strategy, rather than a scientific analyses of the resultant properties.13,14
The initially used chemically activated polymerisation took longer than patients or clinicians desired and so photoinitiators were added. First, ultraviolet-sensitive photoinitiators were used, but they produced limited depth of cure (DOC) and degree of conversion (DC%), so visible-light-sensitive photoinitiators, such as camphorquinone (CQ), were introduced. To activate the photoinitiation, light-curing units (LCUs) capable of delivering light at the correct excitation wavelengths were developed, first using broadband sources such as quartz-tungsten-halogen bulbs and more recently, narrowband light-emitting diode (LED) sources tuned to the specific excitation wavelengths. With improvements in many properties linked to the DC%, increasingly intense light sources have been developed with the aim of increasing the DC%. However, the relationship between DC% and light intensity is complicated and it has been shown the once the LCU intensity increases above 1 W/cm2, any further improvement in properties may be marginal.15 These high intensity LCUs are also suggested to reduce the time required to obtain a satisfactory DC% because, it is claimed by manufacturers, that there is a simple reciprocity relationship between light intensity and curing time. However, investigation using both commercially available RBCs16 and laboratory-produced model formulations,17 different types of LCUs18and photoinitiators,17 have revealed that the relationship is more complex and factors such as overall monomer viscosity, monomer types used and filler concentration are all important. In general, it seems that so long as the radiant exposure from the LCU is above the minimum required to produce adequate polymerisation, the reciprocity relationship holds so long as the filler loading is above a 50 wt%.19
Low shrink RBC materials
The main reason for RBC replacement is due to dental caries, either a recurrence of the original caries, or secondary caries.5 Although there is still no direct clinical evidence to prove that polymerisation shrinkage is the cause of secondary caries,5 in vitro studies show that it can cause cuspal deflection, enamel cracking and the breakdown of the composite-tooth margin,5,20,21,22 the latter of which could potentially lead to caries and is taken as justification for the considerable amount of research undertaken to develop so-called low shrink materials. Meeries et al.23 conducted a meta-analysis of much of this work in 2018. The magnitude of the shrinkage strain and stress during polymerisation has many causes and so it is not surprising that many different approaches have been attempted to reduce it.24 Broadly speaking, these approaches can be divided into: alterations in the filler size and concentration; and the monomer structure,23,24 although some research has focused on modifying the coupling agent20,25,26 and altering the polymerisation initiation rate by initially reducing the intensity of light emitting from the LCU.27
Increasing the concentration of filler leads to a reduction in polymerisation shrinkage, simply due to the relative reduction in reactive monomer groups per unit volume.28 By reducing the size of filler particles and including multiple size distributions into the monomer, filler concentrations have raised to well over the 50 vol%, which was the limit for the first RBCs. One of the limits identified with including higher concentrations of filler was that it became harder for the monomer to wet all the filler particles, meaning there came a point when mechanical properties were reduced with increasing filler concentration. Consequently, smaller nanoscale particles were developed. Traditional methods of making filler particles, such as milling and sieving, tend to be unable to produce particles smaller than of the order of 100 nm.29 Consequently, techniques such as pyrolysis and sol-gel production have been utilised.30 In general, silica nanoparticles are amorphous and spherical, although as they grow larger, they tend to be less regular in shape.31 With such small particles, the ratio of surface energy to volume can be sufficiently high, that particles tend to agglomerate into clusters that can be up to 5 μm in diameter,32 which can lead to a poor distribution of filler in an RBC. While some beneficial properties, such as improved wear resistance, have been reported for the agglomerated nanocluster materials,29,33 most often, organosilane coupling agents are used to reduce agglomeration29,34 and improve the properties. By incorporating nanoparticles into multi-particle distribution hybrid systems, increased filler concentrations have been reported with related increases in a variety of mechanical properties35,36 and decreases in polymerisation shrinkage. There is considerable variability in the distribution, concentration and relative amounts of microparticles and nanoparticles in current commercially available nanohybrids,14 suggesting that once again, this description of a class of RBC is more akin to a marketing strategy than useful to the clinician when choosing a material for use.
In addition to altering the dimensions and concentration of filler in RBCs to reduce shrinkage, alterations to the monomeric resin constituents are commonplace. This is not surprising, since the monomer is the component responsible for the shrinkage and it has been known for many years that the amount of volumetric shrinkage that occurs during polymerisation is proportional to the molecular weight of the monomer, for methacrylate monomers at least.37 A whole variety of monomer families have been reported to produce 'low-shrink' RBCs, ranging from alternative methacrylates,38,39,40 thiol-enes,41 thiol-urethanes42 and siloranes.21 The in vitro data for these different monomers show promising results, with shrinkages significantly lower compared with those obtained with BisGMA RBC derivatives and often with improvements in the mechanical properties. Several commercial products have been released, notably those based on silorane and some dimethacrylates; however, the initially promising in vitro data on these materials does not seem to have translated to a clinical advantage since the first commercially available silorane-based RBC formulation was withdrawn from the market.
Stronger RBC materials
With fracture being the other most common cause of RBC restoration failure, many studies have focused on developing stronger materials. Improvements in fillers have been suggested by developing ceramic and glass-ceramic materials, some of which have already been incorporated in commercially available products. One area that is also receiving considerable attention is attempts to improve the resin component, either by developing stronger monomers or by increasing the degree of conversion.
Employing current LCUs, the conversion of monomer to polymer clinically is typically below 80%, and can be as low as 40%.43,44 As the most common monomers used are difunctional, any degree of conversion above 50% might suggest that each monomer is converted to polymer. However, as many studies have shown that there is residual unreacted monomer that can be released into the oral environment,44,45,46,47,48 a conversion more than 50% is needed. Health concerns remain over the release of monomer into the oral environment due to their potential irritancy and cytotoxicity.47 Of particular concern is the bisphenol A (BPA) component of BisGMA. BPA mimics the effects of oestrogen and in animal studies has been shown to be potentially linked to several health conditions, particularly a reduction in fertility49 and in utero exposure could alter organ development.50 In products such as baby drinking bottles, many products are now explicitly advertised as BPA-free and while the link between BisGMA-based RBCs and any of the health problems associated with BPA has never been established, improved monomers could potentially lead to longer lasting restorations and avert another 'amalgam debate'.
Methacrylate monomers, such as those used in RBCs, have ester bonds that are susceptible to hydrolysis and so weaken over time.51 Consequently, alternative monomers more stable in aqueous environments are being researched. As with low-shrink monomers, a wide variety of monomer families have been reported, such as diacrylates, methacrylamides, vinyl ethers, thiol-vinyl sulphone and thiol-enes.52,53 In some cases, different polymerisation routes, such as step-growth polymerisation,54 click-chemistry55 and reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer56 have been used. Initial in vitro data for composites made from these monomers seem promising, with high degrees of polymerisation and increased mechanical properties reported compared to currently available RBC products.
The most common photoinitiator used in RBCs is CQ, a Norrish type II initiator, which requires a co-initiator, such as a tertiary amine, to generate a sufficiently high concentration of radicals.57 Most in vitro research tends to use as the co-initiator either (dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) or ethyl-4-(dimethylamino) benzoate (EDAB),58 with EDAB typically reported to be the most efficient of the two.58,59 However, the desire to have higher DC% and faster polymerisation has led to other initiators being investigated. The addition of iodonium salts as co-initiators has been shown to increase the rate of polymerisation, DC% and mechanical properties of CQ/amine systems due to the iodonium salts increasing the number of radicals produced per CQ molecule.58,60,61,62,63 These encouraging results using iodonium salts has even led researchers to consider whether amine-free systems are possible, but so far, the properties of amine-free RBCs are below those containing CQ/amine/iodonium salts.64
Norrish type I initiators, such as derivatives of acylphosphine oxides and of benzoyl germanium, have been also been considered.65 These form radicals by a cleavage reaction and so do not need a co-initiator.57 They also tend to have a less obvious effect on the colour of RBCs compared to CQ.59,66 One benzoyl germanium derivative, bis-(4-methoxybenzoyl)diethylgermane, has already been patented under the trademark Ivocerin and is used in commercially available products.67 The acylphosphine oxides are widely researched, typically providing much greater rates of polymerisation and higher DC%68 but with lower DOC.66 They also have excitation wavelengths different to that of CQ, meaning that for optimal polymerisation, different LCUs are needed. Many manufacturers now market 'polywave' LCUs that contain multiple LEDs capable of delivering light at different wavelengths, but this represents an increased cost for clinicians if they are to use RBCs that contain these alternative initiators. When type I and type II initiators are combined, improvements in DOC and colour stability have been reported compared relative to type I (DOC) and type II (colour stability) only systems.66,68 In the search for stronger composites, it is likely that more research will focus on combinations of photoinitiators, particularly now that polywave LCUs are readily available.
Functional RBCs
Current RBCs act really only as a space filler, returning form and function to the surrounding tooth, yet other filling materials are known to have an antibacterial effect, for instance low copper dental amalgams and to release fluoride, for instance glass ionomer cements. As RBCs are developed it is not, therefore, surprising that researchers have attempted to add these types of capabilities to them.
RBCs that have a bactericidal effect have been developed with the twin aims of either killing any residual bacteria that remain after cavity preparation and/or to reduce the incidence of secondary caries. RBCs that can release ions of silver or zinc are well-known to show antibacterial action in vitro.69,70 Others have been modified to contain commonly used soluble antibacterial agents such as chlorhexidine (CHX). As the agents are not bound to the RBC, they wash out at initially high concentrations that diminishes rapidly over time, typical of a diffusion controlled release profile,71 which also compromises the mechanical properties of the RBC.72 Methacrylate monomers functionalised with agents such as CHX have been developed73 with the aim of extending the antibacterial activity beyond the initial burst period. While the CHX-methacrylates have been used in experimental RBCs and are already included in some commercially available dentine bonding agents, far more commonly used in RBC research are quaternary ammonium compounds. Many different quaternary ammonium methacrylates (QAMs) have been studied and they have demonstrated antibacterial activity against single species models and multi-species models, including bacteria obtained directly from saliva or dental plaque.74 One QAM, methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) has been incorporated into model RBCs, with some encouraging in vitro results75,76,77,78 and has been a component of a commercially available dentine bonding agent for some time. The results of in vitro and in situ studies using the DBA are encouraging and suggest that QAM-containing materials may well reduce bacterial adhesion.79 QAMs work by a contact killing mechanism, meaning that there are some concerns that their antibacterial action will diminish once the RBC surface is covered by pellicle.80,81 Consequently, QAMs have been combined with zwitterionic monomers to stop the pellicle from forming.82 Zwitterions, such as 2methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), have two oppositely charged groups in their structure and are highly hydrophilic, making it difficult for proteins and bacteria to adhere to them.83 In a recent in vitro study, these combined MDPB/MPC materials exhibited promising antibacterial activity and protein repulsion, although it should be noted that these effects were only studied over a 48 hour period.82
A variety of salts, ceramics and glasses have been developed to act as potential fillers for RBCs that release ions such as calcium, fluoride and phosphate when exposed to an aqueous environment. The role of fluoride ions in the prevention of caries when used in gels and mouthwashes is well-documented.84 It is hoped ion-releasing fillers will act in a similar way, but depending on the filler composition, also stimulate the formation of either hydroxyapatite or fluorapatite, in the surrounding enamel and dentine. Of particular interest are fillers based on calcium phosphates,85,86,87,88 calcium fluoride,86 fluorapatite89,90,91 and a variety of glasses based on SiO2-P2O5-CaO-Na2O (termed BioGlasses),92 recently reviewed.93 In vitro assessment of RBCs containing these fillers has revealed they can form apatite layers94,95 when exposed to simulated body fluid (SBF).96,97,98 However, SBF does not mimic the organic components of saliva, raising some concerns that the in vitro apatite formation may not be replicated in vivo, so some caution must be exercised when interpreting these results.99 The majority of current studies involve modifications to the composition of the filler, the method of producing the filler and alteration of filler concentration, meaning that clear structure-property relationships do not yet exist. Mechanical and physical properties comparable to commercially available RBCs have been reported for a range of RBCs containing these fillers, although in many studies, the mechanical properties diminish over time when the materials are stored in an aqueous environment.
Several RBCs are commercially available that claim to release ions and potentially prevent secondary caries and enable remineralisation. They are often marketed as being 'bioactive' RBCs, which may be nothing more than a marketing strategy rather that representing a genuine modulation of a biological process.93,100,101 It is too early to say whether these products present the clinician with a clear advantage over conventional RBCs but in vitro analysis of some of these products has revealed differences in their ability to form apatites and their ion release profiles over a variety of pHs,102 suggesting that there may be variation in performance among different products for the foreseeable future, particularly considering that we still do not know whether these materials stimulate actual remineralisation.
Conclusion
As the above discussion shows, there is a significant number of papers published annually purportedly highlighting the development of new RBC materials or components, yet unfortunately, despite the effort, there is a poor track record in translating this research into new products. While there are likely to be many reasons for this, one potential reason could be that there seems to be a large and ever increasing array of properties in reported studies used to characterise these materials, many of which have no clear link to clinical performance. Often, studies seem to use the tests specified in the International Organisation for Standardisation standards, even though these standards have never been intended to indicate clinical performance.103,104 Additionally, new materials are often benchmarked against currently available products. While this is a sensible approach, as pointed out in a recent editorial,105 many authors do not actually report the conditions under which these comparator benchmarking materials have been produced. Rather, they state they have been made following 'the manufacturer's instructions', which is ambiguous and can reduce the reproducibility of the work.105 Encouragingly, several authors have attempted to relate laboratory-measured parameters to clinical performance, with fracture toughness correlated with clinical fracture and flexural strength correlated with wear.106 Further, the wider effects of clinician-based factors and patient-based factors on the longevity of restorations of all types are now being extensively reported. The amount of training clinicians receive in the placement of RBCs can affect their confidence in using them in difficult situations.7,10 Training in the placement of RBCs for posterior restorations has increased in UK dental schools over the last 20 years,107,108 meaning that this lack of confidence should diminish in the clinician population. In terms of patient-based factors, it is now clear that the socioeconomic level of a patient, their access to and regular attendance of dental clinics and the level of caries risk they already have are major factors in restoration longevity, irrespective of which material is used.1,2,4
Of course, there have been some new products released that can be related to a series of laboratory studies. In recent years, RBCs marketed as being bulk-fill, bioactive or self-adhesive have been released; all based on extensive in vitro research. It is perhaps too early to say whether any of these new products offer the clinician a significant advantage in restoration longevity compared to RBCs that were available, say, five years ago. This review demonstrates the area of RBC research to be active and hopefully some of the areas highlighted will lead to improved RBC materials in the future.
References
Collares K, Opdam N J, Peres K G et al. Higher experience of caries and lower income trajectory influence the quality of restorations: A multilevel analysis in a birth cohort. J Dent 2018; 68: 79-84.
Demarco F F, Correa M B, Cenci M S, Moraes R R, Opdam N J M. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87-101.
Lynch C D, Opdam N J, Hickel R et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014; 42: 377-383.
Vetromilla B M, Opdam N J, Leida F L et al. Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2020; 151: 614-624.
Ferracane J L, Hilton T J. Polymerization stress - Is it clinically meaningful? Dent Mater 2016; 32: 1-10.
Lynch C D, Farnell D J J, Stanton H, Chestunutt I G, Brunton P A, Wilson N H F. No more amalgams: Use of amalgam and amalgam alternative materials in primary dental care. Br Dent J 2018; 225: 171-176.
Bailey O, Vernazza C R, Stone S, Ternent L, Roche A-G, Lynch C. Amalgam Phase-Down Part 1: UKBased Posterior Restorative Material and Technique Use. JDR Clin Trans Res 2022; 7: 41-49.
Heintze S D, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 407-431.
Opdam N, Frankenberger R, Magne P. From 'Direct Versus Indirect' Toward an Integrated Restorative Concept in the Posterior Dentition. Oper Dent 2016; DOI: 10.2341/15-126-LIT.
Bailey O, Vernazza C R, Stone S, Ternent L, Roche A-G, Lynch C. Amalgam Phase-Down Part 2: UKBased Knowledge, Opinions, and Confidence in the Alternatives. JDR Clin Trans Res 2022; 7: 50-60.
Ferracane J L. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.
Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 97-116.
Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006; 76: 114-120.
Randolph L D, Palin W M, Leloup G, Leprince J G. Filler characteristics of modern dental resin composites and their influence on physico-mechanical properties. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 1586-1599.
Musanje L, Darvell B W. Polymerization of resin composite restorative materials: exposure reciprocity. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 531-541.
Hadis M, Leprince J G, Shortall A C, Devaux J, Leloup G, Palin W M. High irradiance curing and anomalies of exposure reciprocity law in resin-based materials. J Dent 2011; 39: 549-557.
Leprince J G, Hadis M, Shortall A C et al. Photoinitiator type and applicability of exposure reciprocity law in filled and unfilled photoactive resins. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 157-164.
Feng L, Carvalho R, Suh B I. Insufficient cure under the condition of high irradiance and short irradiation time. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 283-289.
Palagummi S V, Hong T, Wang Z, Moon C K, Chiang M Y M. Resin viscosity determines the condition for a valid exposure reciprocity law in dental composites. Dent Mater 2020; 36: 310-319.
Shah P K, Stansbury J W. Photopolymerization shrinkage-stress reduction in polymer-based dental restoratives by surface modification of fillers. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 578-587.
Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 68-74.
Ferracane J. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 36-42.
Meereis C T W, Münchow E A, de Oliveira da Rosa W L, da Silva A F, Piva E. Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin-based dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analyses of composition strategies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 82: 268-281.
Cramer N B, Stansbury J W, Bowman C N. Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials. J Dent Res 2011; 90: 402-416.
Faria-E-Silva A L, Dos Santos A, Tang A, Girotto E M, Pfeifer C S. Effect of thiourethane filler surface functionalization on stress, conversion and mechanical properties of restorative dental composites. Dent Mater 2018; 34: 1351-1358.
Sowan N, Bowman C N, Cox L M, Shah P K, Song H B, Stansbury J W. Dynamic Covalent Chemistry at Interfaces: Development of Tougher, Healable Composites through Stress Relaxation at the Resin-Silica Nanoparticles Interface. Adv Mater Interfaces 2018; DOI: 10.1002/admi.201800511.
Tarle Z, Knezevic A, Demoli N et al. Comparison of composite curing parameters: Effects of light source and curing mode on conversion, temperature rise and polymerization shrinkage. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 219-226.
Shah P K, Stansbury J W. Role of filler and functional group conversion in the evolution of properties in polymeric dental restoratives. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 586-593.
Mitra S B, Wu D, Holmes B N. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-1390.
Chen M-H. Update on Dental Nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 549-560.
Mikhail S S, Azer S S, Schricker S R. Nanofillers in Restorative Dentsitry. In Bhushan B, Luo D, Schricker S R, Sigmund W, Zauscher S (eds) Handbook of Nanomaterials Properties: Volume 2. pp 1377-1442. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.
Curtis A R, Palin W M, Fleming G J P, Shortall A C C, Marquis P M. The mechanical properties of nanofilled resin-based composites: characterizing discrete filler particles and agglomerates using a micromanipulation technique. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 180-187.
Curtis A R, Palin W M, Fleming G J P, Shortall A C C, Marquis P M. The mechanical properties of nanofilled resin-based composites: The impact of dry and wet cyclic pre-loading on bi-axial flexure strength. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 188-197.
Xia Y, Zhang F, Xie H, Gu N. Nanoparticle-reinforced resin-based dental composites. J Dent 2008; 36: 450-455.
Jun S K, Kim D A, Goo HJ, Lee H H. Investigation of the correlation between the different mechanical properties of resin composites. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 48-57.
Wang R, Bao S, Liu F et al. Wear behaviour of light-cured resin composites with bimodal silica nanostructures as fillers. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013; 33: 4759-4766.
Patel M P, Braden M, Davy K W M. Polymerization shrinkage of methacrylate esters. Biomaterials 1987; 8: 53-56.
Yu B, Liu F, He J. Preparation of low shrinkage methacrylate-based resin system without Bisphenol A structure by using a synthesized dendritic macromer (G-IEMA). J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014; 35: 1-8.
He J, Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu P K, Lassila L. The effect of adding a new monomer "Phene" on the polymerization shrinkage reduction of a dental resin composite. Dent Mater 2019; 35: 627-635.
Manojlovic D, Dramićanin M D, Milosevic M et al. Effects of a low-shrinkage methacrylate monomer and monoacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator on curing efficiency and mechanical properties of experimental resin-based composites. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016; 58: 487-494.
Boulden J E, Cramer N B, Schreck K M et al. Thiolenemethacrylate composites as dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 267-272.
Bacchi A, Dobson A, Ferracane J L, Consani R, Pfeifer C S. Thio-urethanes Improve Properties of Dual-cured Composite Cements. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 1320-1325.
Miletic V J, Santini A. Remaining unreacted methacrylate groups in resin-based composite with respect to sample preparation and storing conditions using micro-Raman spectroscopy. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008; 87: 468-474.
Durner J, Schrickel K, Watts D C, Becker M, Draenert M E. Direct and indirect monomer elution from an RBC product family. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 1601-1614.
Spahl W, Budzikiewicz H, Geurtsen W. Determination of leachable components from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Dent 1998; 26: 137-145.
Ferracane J L. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 211-222.
Durner J, Spahl W, Zaspel J, Schweikl H, Hickel R, Reichl F-X. Eluted substances from unpolymerized and polymerized dental restorative materials and their Nernst partition coefficient. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 91-99.
Durner J, Obermaier J, Draenert M, Ilie N. Correlation of the degree of conversion with the amount of elutable substances in nano-hybrid dental composites. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1146-1153.
Cabaton N J, Wadia P R, Rubin B S et al. Perinatal exposure to environmentally relevant levels of bisphenol A decreases fertility and fecundity in CD1 mice. Environ Health Perspect 2011; 119: 547-552.
Gerona R R, Pan J, Zota A R et al. Direct measurement of Bisphenol A (BPA), BPA glucuronide and BPA sulphate in a diverse and low-income population of pregnant women reveals high exposure, with potential implications for previous exposure estimates: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health 2016; DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0131-2.
Delaviz Y, Finer Y, Santerre J P. Biodegradation of resin composites and adhesives by oral bacteria and saliva: A rationale for new material designs that consider the clinical environment and treatment challenges. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 16-32.
Fugolin A P P, Pfeifer C S. New Resins for Dental Composites. J Dent Res 2017; 96: 1085-1091.
Yoshinaga K, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y. Development of new diacrylate monomers as substitutes for Bis-GMA and UDMA. Dent Mater 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.023.
Wang X, Gao G, Song H B, Zhang X, Stansbury J W, Bowman C N. Evaluation of a photo-initiated copper(I)-catalysed azide-alkyne cycloaddition polymer network with improved water stability and high mechanical performance as an ester-free dental restorative. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 1592-1600.
Song H B, Wang X, Patton J R, Stansbury J W, Bowman C N. Kinetics and mechanics of photo-polymerized triazole-containing thermosetting composites via the copper(I)-catalysed azide-alkyne cycloaddition. Dent Mater 2017; 33: 621-629.
Leung D, Bowman N. Reducing Shrinkage Stress of Dimethacrylate Networks by Reversible Addition-Fragmentation Chain Transfer. Macromol Chem Phys 2012; 213: 198-204.
Ye Q, Abedin F, Parthasarathy R, Spencer P. Photoinitiators in Dentistry: Challenges and Advances. In Lalevée J, Fouassier J-P (eds) Photopolymerisation Initiating Systems. pp 297-336. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2018.
De Andrade K M G, Palialol A R, Lancellotti A C et al. Effect of diphenyliodonium hexafluorphosphate on resin cements containing different concentrations of ethyl 4(dimethylamino)benzoate and 2(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate as co-initiators. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 749-755.
De Oliveira D C R S, Rocha M G, Gatti A, Correr A B, Ferracane J L, Sinhoret M A C. Effect of different photoinitiators and reducing agents on cure efficiency and colour stability of resin-based composites using different LED wavelengths. J Dent 2015; 43: 1565-1572.
Lima A F, Salvador M V O, Dressano D et al. Increased rates of photopolymerisation by ternary type II photoinitiator systems in dental resins. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 98: 71-78.
Dressano D, Palialol A R, Xavier T A et al. Effect of diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate on the physical and chemical properties of ethanolic solvated resins containing camphorquinone and 1phenyl1,2-propanedione sensitizers as initiators. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 756-764.
Gonçalves L S, Moraes R R, Ogliari F A et al. Improved polymerization efficiency of methacrylate-based cements containing an iodonium salt. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 1251-1255.
Ogliari F A, Ely C, Petzhold C L, Demarco F F, Piva E. Onium salt improves the polymerization kinetics in an experimental dental adhesive resin. J Dent 2007; 35: 583-587.
Salvador M V, Fronza B M, Pecorari V G A et al. Physicochemical properties of dental resins formulated with amine-free photoinitiation systems. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 1358-1365.
Palin W M, Leprince J G, Hadis M A. Shining a light on high volume photocurable materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34: 695-710.
De Oliveira D C R S, Rocha M G, Correa I C, Correr A B, Ferracane J L, Sinhoreti M A C.The effect of combining photoinitiator systems on the colour and curing profile of resin-based composites. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 1209-1217.
Moszner N, Zeuner F, Liska R et al. Polymerisierbare Zusammensetzungen mit Acylgermanium-Verbindungen als Initiatoren. EU Patent Application EP1905415B1. 2009.
Hadis M A, Shortall A C, Palin W M. Competitive light absorbers in photoactive dental resin-based materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 831-841.
Yamamoto K, Ohashi S, Aono M, Kokubo T, Yamada I, Yamauchi J. Antibacterial activity of silver ions implanted in SiO2 filler on oral streptococci. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 227-229.
Osinaga P W R, Grande R H M, Ballester R Y, Simionato M R L, Rodrigues C R M D, Muench A. Zinc sulfate addition to glassionomerbased cements: Influence on physical and antibacterial properties, zinc and fluoride release. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 212-217.
Anusavice K J, Zhang N-Z, Shen C. Controlled Release of Chlorhexidine from UDMA-TEGDMA Resin. J Dent Res 2006; 85: 950-954.
Jedrychowski J R, Caputo A A, Kerper S. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of restorative materials combined with chlorhexidines. J Oral Rehabil 1983; 10: 373-381.
Nawareg M A, Elkassas D, Zidan A et al. Is chlorhexidine-methacrylate as effective as chlorhexidine digluconate in preserving resin dentin interfaces? J Dent 2016; 45: 7-13.
Ibrahim M S, Garcia I M, Kensara A et al. How we are assessing the developing antibacterial resin-based dental materials? A scoping review. J Dent 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103369.
Imazato S, Imai T, Russell R R, Torii M, Ebisu S. Antibacterial activity of cured dental resin incorporating the antibacterial monomer MDPB and an adhesion-promoting monomer. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 39: 511-515.
Imazato S, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y, McCabe J F, Russell R R. Incorporation of bacterial inhibitor into resin composite. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1437-1443.
Imazato S, Ebi N, Tarumi H, Russell R R, Kaneko T, Ebisu S. Bactericidal activity and cytotoxicity of antibacterial monomer MDPB. Biomaterials 1999; 20: 899-903.
Imazato S, Ehara A, Torii M, Ebisu S. Antibacterial activity of dentine primer containing MDPB after curing. J Dent 1998; 26: 267-271.
Imazato S. Bio-active restorative materials with antibacterial effects: new dimension of innovation in restorative dentistry. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 11-19.
Müller R, Eidt A, Hiller K A et al. Influences of protein films on antibacterial or bacteria-repellent surface coatings in a model system using silicon wafers. Biomaterials 2009; 30: 4921-4929.
Zhang S, He L, Yang Y et al. Effective in situ repair and bacteriostatic material of tooth enamel based on salivary acquired pellicle inspired oligomeric procyanidins. Polym Chem 2016; 7: 6761-6769.
Thongthai P, Kitagawa H, Kitagawa R et al. Development of novel surface coating composed of MDPB and MPC with dual functionality of antibacterial activity and protein repellency. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2020; 108: 3241-3249.
Ishihara K, Ziats N P, Tierney B P, Nakabayashi N, Anderson J M. Protein adsorption from human plasma is reduced on phospholipid polymers. J Biomed Mater Res 1991; 25: 1397-1407.
Marinho V C C, Higgins J P T, Logan S, Sheiham A. Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002782.
Skrtic D, Antonucci J M, Eanes E D, Eichmiller F C, Schumacher G E. Physicochemical evaluation of bioactive polymeric composites based on hybrid amorphous calcium phosphates. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53: 381-391.
Xu H H K, Weir M D, Sun L et al. Strong nanocomposites with Ca, PO4, and F release for caries inhibition. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 19-28.
Xu H H K, Sun L, Weir M D, Takagi S, Chow L C, Hockey B. Effects of incorporating nanosized calcium phosphate particles on properties of whisker-reinforced dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007; 81: 116-125.
Mehdawi I M, Pratten J, Spratt D A, Knowles J C, Young A M. High strength re-mineralizing, antibacterial dental composites with reactive calcium phosphates. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 473-484.
Van der Laan H L, Zajdowicz S L, Kuroda K et al. Biological and Mechanical Evaluation of Novel Prototype Dental Composites. J Dent Res 2019; 98: 91-97.
Chen H, Tang Z, Liu J et al. Acellular Synthesis of a Human Enamel-like Microstructure. Adv Mater 2006; 18: 1846-1851.
Altaie A, Bubb N, Franklin P, German M J, Marie A, Wood D J. Development and characterisation of dental composites containing anisotropic fluorapatite bundles and rods. Dent Mater 2020; 36: 1071-1085.
Hench L L. Bioceramics: From Concept to Clinic. J Am Ceram Soc 1991; 74: 1487-1510.
Tiskaya M, Shahid S, Gillam D, Hill R. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: A critical review. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 296-310.
Aljabo A, Abou Neel E A, Knowles J C, Young A M. Development of dental composites with reactive fillers that promote precipitation of antibacterial-hydroxyapatite layers. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016; 60: 285-292.
Jang JH, Lee M G, Ferracane J L et al. Effect of bioactive glass-containing resin composite on dentin remineralization. J Dent 2018; 75: 58-64.
Kokubo T, Kushitani H, Sakka S, Kitsugi T, Yamamuro T. Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W. J Biomed Mater Res 1990; 24: 721-734.
Kokubo T. Bioactive glass ceramics: properties and applications. Biomaterials 1991; 12: 155-163.
Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials 2006; 27: 2907-2915.
Pan H, Zhao X, Darvell B W, Lu W W. Apatite-formation ability-predictor of "bioactivity"? Acta Biomater 2010; 6: 4181-4188.
Vallittu P K, Boccaccini A R, Hupa L, Watts D C. Bioactive dental materials - Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent Mater 2018; 34: 693-694.
Darvell B W, Smith A J. Inert to bioactive - A multidimensional spectrum. Dent Mater 2021; 38: 2-6.
Tiskaya M, Al-Eesa N A, Wong F S L, Hill R G. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent Mater 2019; 35: 1757-1768.
Darvell B W. Misuse of ISO standards in dental materials research. Dent Mater 2020; 36: 1493-1494.
Schmalz G, Watts D C, Darvell B W. Dental materials science: Research, testing and standards. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 379-381.
Darvell B W. Manufacturers' instructions: Detail essential for reproducibility. Dent Mater 2021; 37: 1215-1216.
Heintze S D, Ilie N, Hickel R, Reis A, Loguercio A, Rousson V. Laboratory mechanical parameters of composite resins and their relation to fractures and wear in clinical trials - A systematic review. Dent Mater 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.013.
Lynch C D, Wilson N H. Managing the phase-down of amalgam: Part I. Educational and training issues. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 109-113.
Lynch C D, McConnell R J, Wilson N H. Teaching of posterior composite resin restorations in undergraduate dental schools in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Eur J Dent Educ 2006; 10: 38-43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.© The Author(s) 2022
About this article
Cite this article
German, M. Developments in resin-based composites. Br Dent J 232, 638–643 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4240-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4240-8
This article is cited by
-
Introduction of a New Classification for Resin Composites with Enhanced Color Adjustment Potential
Current Oral Health Reports (2023)