It also outlines current restorative techniques appropriate for varied clinical scenarios.
A structured literature search was conducted via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
It focused especially on clinical studies from the past decade, including long-term follow‑ups, as well as relevant laboratory and practice-based research.
Factors Influencing Clinical Performance
✔ Resin composites are widely regarded as the materials of choice for posterior restorations, due to their additive nature, which allows for maximum tooth structure preservation, and when failure occurs, the prognosis for repair is favorable.
✔ Common limitations include wear, marginal degradation, surface staining, and pigmentation. The most frequent reasons for failure are fractures and secondary caries.
✔ Minimally invasive repairs are often feasible to extend restoration longevity.
✔ Parafunctional habits (e.g. bruxism, clenching) impose mechanical stresses that lead to higher failure risk.
✔ Notably, updated composite formulations don’t always outperform earlier versions; a five‑year study found no significant difference between versions.
Restorative Materials and Techniques
The article emphasizes the importance of photoactivation efficiency (effective light curing).
For cavity restoration, various approaches are discussed: incremental layering with multiple shades/opacities, bulk‑fill composites, and shade‑matching composites to optimize esthetics and performance.
Conclusion
This review highlights resin composites as dependable and conservative restoratives for posterior teeth.
Success hinges on appropriate material selection, proper light curing, tailored restorative techniques, and awareness of patient-specific risks like bruxism.
When failures occur, conservative repair often suffices, extending restoration lifespan.
👉 Dentists and clinicians interested in exploring these insights and restorative strategies further are invited to download and read the full article in PDF via the MDPI site.
