Advances in Ecofriendly and High-Strength Dental Composites: Structural and Functional Perspectives

Abstract

Restorative dentistry has seen a drastic revolution since the innovation of dental composites. They have made dentistry minimally invasive and aesthetically acceptable. Simultaneous developments in manufacturing, resin matrices, fillers, and interphases have improved mechanical performance, biostability, and properties including self-healing, remineralizing, and antibacterial properties. At the same time, a move toward sustainability, longer service life, less waste, lower embodied carbon, and less harmful chemicals is being accelerated by climate pledges and regulatory pressure. To conduct this review, three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar) were searched using various combination of keywords such as “sustainable composites” and “eco-friendly composites.” Current research on high-performance resin-matrix composites, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing polymer networks and short- and continuous-fiber reinforced systems, as well as functional composites that remineralize, release ions, combat biofilm, or self-heal, is summarized in this review. Sustainability levers spanning design, clinical use, and end-of-life are also covered. With a useful selection matrix for structural and functional applications, comparative data tables provide an overview of mechanical and functional benchmarks. Important research needs are found for integrating circularity, nanofillers like graphene and nanocellulose, and bio-based monomers into everyday care. The aim of this review was to gauge recent advancements made in dental composites especially when structural and functional aspects are considered.

Keywords

sustainable composites - ecofriendly composites - dental composites

Introduction

An organic matrix, such as bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, bisphenol A diglycidyl methacrylate ethoxylated, or bisphenol A (BPA)-free substitutes, is combined with inorganic or organic fillers, such as glass, silica, ceramic, and fibers, together with coupling agents, often silanes, in resin-matrix composites. The main factors influencing stiffness, fracture, wear, polymerization stress, water sorption, and aging are filler morphology, loading, and interfacial chemistry.[1] The primary cause of composite failure, secondary caries, is addressed by emerging functional fillers like bioactive glass (BAG) and amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) and antibacterial moieties like quaternary ammonium methacrylates. In structurally demanding indications, fiber architectures address fatigue and fracture.[2]

In dentistry, sustainability includes safer chemicals such as formulations with less residual monomer and no BPA, longer-lasting materials that require fewer replacement cycles, effective curing and placement that saves time, energy, and waste, and circularity through packaging recycling and fewer single-use plastics.[3] Although they need thorough testing in the oral environment, bio-based monomers and reinforcements of natural origin show promise.[4] [5]

With a focus on their structural innovations, material composition, and functional performance, the aim of this review was to thoroughly examine current developments in the creation of high-strength, environmentally friendly dental composites. It aimed to assess how improved mechanical qualities, biocompatibility, and environmental sustainability in restorative dentistry are influenced by sustainable materials, innovative reinforcing methods, and bioactive components ([Fig. 1]).

Methodology

An in-depth literature search was performed on scholarly databases like PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. The keywords used included “sustainable composites” and “eco-friendly composite” in various combinations of Boolean operators. No filter on timeline was included. Articles available in English language were only considered. The initial search results were then screened by authors S.A.M., A.P., and H.J. for their relevance for inclusion in this narrative article. After careful assessment, a total of 49 articles were included in this narrative synthesis.

Classes of High-Performance Dental Composites

Resin-matrix composites that are nanofilled or nanohybrid typically have moduli between 7 and 14 GPa and flexural strengths of over 80 to 150 MPa.[6] For posterior flowables and bulk-fills, they provide high polish retention, wear resistance, and a suitable depth of cure; nevertheless, they have drawbacks such as fatigue, hydrolytic degradation at the resin–filler interface, and polymerization shrinkage stress.[7] Glass fibers with a discontinuous aspect ratio, usually between 30 and 100, are used to create short-fiber reinforced composites in a resin matrix. With a flexural strength of around 120 to 160 MPa and a fracture toughness of 2.5 to 4.6 MPa·m½, these fibers serve as deflectors and crack stoppers.[8] They are also superior substructures under traditional composites in deep cavities, endodontic restorations, and onlay or overlay cores, and they exhibit a better depth of cure than particle composites.[9]

Continuous fiber-reinforced composites are made of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) discs or preimpregnated tapes that include unidirectional, woven, or braided fibers like glass, carbon, or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. They may be used for posts, adhesive bridges, frames, and splints because of their direction-dependent stiffness and great fatigue resistance.[10] With an elastic modulus closer to dentin, ranging from 12 to 30 GPa, CAD/CAM polymer networks and polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks are distinguished by industrial polymerization with a high degree of conversion, minimized voids, and good machinability. These materials are used in minimally invasive fixed partial dentures with fiber-reinforced frames, inlays, onlays, and endocrowns.[11]

Functional Composite Systems

Fillers like BAG, ACP, nano-ACP (NACP), or surface-prereacted glass ionomer are used in remineralizing or ion-releasing composites. Local pH is raised, calcium, phosphate, fluoride, and silicon ions are released, apatite production is encouraged, dentin remineralization is supported, and demineralization at the margins is inhibited.[12] Antibacterial composites include stabilized metal or metal oxide nanoparticles, graphene-based nanofillers, and quaternary ammonium methacrylates. Without sacrificing mechanics, they lessen the likelihood of subsequent caries by lowering bacterial viability and biofilm acidogenicity.[13]

To stop microcracks and prolong service life, self-healing composites employ dynamic covalent chemistries or resin healing based on microcapsules. To provide conductivity, sensing ability, and mechanical reinforcement, smart or sensing composites combine graphene, graphene oxide, or nanocellulose.[14]

Key Performance Metric and Benchmarks of Contemporary Composites

Modern dental composites' long-term clinical success is now largely determined by their mechanical performance, especially in stress-bearing restorations. Properties including flexural strength, fracture toughness, and wear resistance have been greatly enhanced by developments in polymerization techniques, resin matrix composition, and filler technology.[15] For instance, contemporary nanohybrid and nanofilled composites often exhibit fracture toughness of 1 to 1.5 MPa·m^1/2 and flexural strength values above 120 MPa, meeting or exceeding the ISO 4049 requirements for restorative materials. These improvements help to increase marginal integrity and lower the risk of secondary caries in addition to providing resistance against occlusal stress and crack propagation.[16] Moreover, the use of silanized fillers with an ideal particle size distribution improves packing density and load transfer efficiency. This has a direct impact on the modulus of elasticity, which normally falls between 12 and 20 GPa, closely resembling dentins, and consequently lessens the concentration of stress at the tooth surface.[17]

Physical standards of modern composites are crucial for guaranteeing therapeutic effectiveness and patient satisfaction in addition to mechanical robustness. Because improved monomer systems such as siloranes or low-shrinkage UDMAs are used, polymerization shrinkage, a crucial factor in interfacial adaptation, has been reduced in modern formulations, with shrinkage stress values frequently falling below 3 MPa.[18] Additionally, shorter light exposure durations and deeper and more reliable curing have been made possible by developments in photoinitiator systems, such as the use of Ivocerin and other germanium-based initiators. Water sorption and solubility are further indicators of physical stability; state-of-the-art composites often exhibit water uptake values below 40 µg/mm³, which considerably improves color stability and slows down hydrolytic breakdown over time.[19] [20] Collectively, these mechanical and physical standards highlight how modern composites may produce long-lasting, aesthetically pleasing, and functional restorations that meet the growing clinical requirements of minimally invasive and longevity-focused dentistry ([Table 1]).[21]

Table 1 Mechanical and physical benchmarks for contemporary composites (in vitro)

Composite class	Flexural strength (MPa)	Modulus (GPa)	Fracture toughness, KIC (MPa·m^½)	Polymerization shrinkage (%)	Shrinkage stress (MPa)	Degree of conversion (%)	Notes
Nanohybrid/Universal RMCs	90–150	7–14	1.0–2.5	2–4 (bulk-fill flowables up to ∼5)	∼2–3	60–80+	Most meet ISO FS ≥ 80 MPa; polish retention high
Flowable bulk-fill RMCs	≥ 80	4–8	0.8–2.0	1.3–10.5	∼2–3	20–90	Wide range DC depends on opacity and cure depth
Short-fiber reinforced (SFRC)	120–160+	8–18	2.5–4.6	∼2–3	∼2–3	55–75	Crack-stopping; greater depth of cure (up to 5 mm reported)
Continuous FRC (frameworks)	Direction-dependent	20–40 (along fibers)	—	—	—	—	High fatigue resistance; anisotropic; excellent splint/bridge cores
“Bioactive” restoratives (commercial)	85–140	5–10	0.8–1.8	2–5	∼2–3	50–75	Mechanical properties vary; some trade-offs for ion release
CAD/CAM polymer networks	120–200	10–20	1.5–3.0	—	—	High	Factory-cured; lower residual monomer; machinable

Abbreviations: CAD/CAM, computer-aided design and manufacturing; DC, degree of conversion; FRC, fiber-reinforced composite; RMC, resin-matrix ceramic; SFRC, short-fiber reinforced composite.

With a growing focus on bioactivity through ion release and antibacterial properties, next-generation dental composites' functional performance goes beyond their mechanical and aesthetic qualities. The regulated release of calcium, phosphate, and fluoride ions made possible by the use of bioactive fillers like calcium phosphate, fluorapatite, and BAG helps to remineralize nearby enamel and dentin and regulate the pH environment in the mouth.[22] It has been demonstrated that fluoride release, in particular, improves acid resistance and decreases demineralization near repair margins, enhancing the prevention of subsequent cavities. Furthermore, the incorporation of antibacterial compounds, such as zinc oxide nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, and quaternary ammonium methacrylates, confers long-term inhibitory effects on cariogenic biofilms without materially reducing the mechanical stability of the composite.[23] By transforming composites from passive restorative materials to active therapeutic agents, these advancements support long-term dental health and are consistent with the idea of minimally invasive dentistry ([Table 2]).[24] [25]

Table 2 Functional performance—ion release and antibacterial effects

System	Principal functional component	Typical outputs	Indicative effects	Considerations
BAG-filled composites/varnishes	45S5 or mesoporous BAG	Ca, PO4, Si, (±F) release; apatite formation on surfaces	Remineralization of white-spot/cementum/dentin; pH buffering	Mechanical dilution at high BAG wt%; coupling and particle size critical
ACP/NACP composites	Amorphous Ca-phosphate nano/micro	Rapid Ca/PO4 release; supersaturation	Inhibits demineralization; supports dentin remineralization	Risk of early strength loss if poorly dispersed; surface sealants help
S-PRG giomer composites	Prereacted glass fillers	Multi-ion release/uptake (F, Sr, Al, Na, BO3)	Anticaries potential; acid neutralization	Mechanical properties closer to conventional RMCs
Antibacterial monomer–containing	Quaternary ammonium methacrylates (e.g., DMAHDM)	Contact-killing surfaces; reduced CFUs and lactic acid	Lowers biofilm virulence; synergistic with NACP	Must balance cytocompatibility and mechanical integrity
Graphene/GO-doped composites	Graphene oxide/reduced GO	Antibacterial activity; electrical/thermal conductivity	Biofilm reduction; potential sensing/adhesion benefits	Dispersion and dose control; biocompatibility must be verified
Self-healing microcapsule composites	Urethane-/epoxy- or methacrylate-filled capsules	Microcrack sealing upon rupture	Restores microcrack integrity; extends fatigue life	Long-term stability; capsule–matrix interfacial effects

Abbreviations: ACP, amorphous calcium phosphate; BAG, bioactive glass; CFU, colony forming unit; DMAHDM, dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate; GO, graphene oxide; NACP, nano-amorphous calcium phosphate; RMC, resin-matrix ceramic; S-PRG, surface prereacted glass-ionomer.

Structural Applications and Evidence

The use of short-fiber reinforced composites as dentin-replacement bases beneath traditional nanohybrid enamel layers enhances fracture resistance and reduces cusp deflection in posterior load-bearing restorations. If there is sufficient curing from several directions, placement in 4 to 5 mm bulk layers is possible.[26] Bulk-fill flowables are easier to put, but they need to be capped in areas of occlusal stress. Most attain shrinkage stresses of 2 to 3 MPa and flexural strengths exceeding 80 MPa.[27] Because of their dentin-like modulus, fiber-reinforced posts with adhesive luting distribute stress more favorably than metal posts in teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment, while woven or braided designs enhance fatigue behavior. High fatigue resistance implant provisionals, periodontal splints, and minimally invasive Maryland-type bridges are made possible by continuous fiber-reinforced composite frameworks like CAD/CAM discs or premade tapes. Particulate composite veneering preserves the framework's mechanical integrity while adding aesthetic appeal.[28] [29]

Sustainability Levers Across the Lifecycle

To be sustainable, safer, less harmful chemicals are essential. Bio-based Bis-GMA analogs and BPA-free, bio-based monomers such isosorbide, itaconic, or terpene-derived dimethacrylates aim for similar conversion, decreased viscosity, and less estrogenicity. Ormocer matrices provide clinical performance that is mostly equivalent to that of traditional resin-matrix composites while reducing traditional diluent monomers, which may minimize shrinkage, stress, and volatile emissions.[30] Other important levers are repairability and durability. The goal of self-healing or crack-arresting fiber designs is to decrease emissions and waste caused by replacements while also extending restorative life. Repair procedures that use adhesive rebonding, silanization, and silica coating protect substrate and save money on materials and energy.[31] Capsule or unit-dose packaging to reduce waste, composite and adhesive packaging segregation and recycling, and effective curing using high-irradiance lamps and appropriate procedures to prevent rework and early failures are all examples of resource and waste minimization ([Table 3]).[32]

Table 3 Sustainability checklist for composite restorations

Phase	Actionable lever	Impact
Material selection	BPA-free or bio-based resins where validated; BAG/NACP for caries-prone sites; SFRC substructure for large MODs	Reduce toxicity concerns; extend service life; reduce secondary caries
Placement	Bulk-fill where appropriate; occlusal capping; multiaxis curing of SFRC; rubber dam to reduce contamination	Fewer increments; lower chair time/energy; improved quality
Maintenance	Encourage nonoperative prevention, high-fluoride, CPP-ACP; schedule repairs before full replacement	Slows failure cascade; conserves tooth structure
End-of-life	Prefer repair over replacement; recycle packaging; follow amalgam-separator/particulate capture norms	Lower waste and emissions

Abbreviations: BAG, bioactive glass; BPA, bisphenol A; CPP-ACP, casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; NACP, nano-amorphous calcium phosphate; SFRC, short-fiber reinforced composite.

Emerging Sustainable and High-Performance Fillers and Matrices

With potential uses in adhesion promotion and sensor integration, graphene and its derivatives, such as graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide, exhibit mechanical reinforcement and antibacterial properties. Strict dosage and dispersion control as well as thorough biocompatibility assessment are necessary, nevertheless. A renewable material with a high aspect ratio and hydrogen-bonding network that improves toughness and wear is nanocellulose, which includes cellulose nanocrystals, cellulose nanofibers, and bacterial nanocellulose.[33] [34] Research issues still include its susceptibility to moisture and dispersion or silanization techniques. Although there is a lack of clinical evidence, bio-based resin platforms, including terpenes, isosorbide derivatives, and epoxidized plant oils, have demonstrated competitive mechanical performance and high conversion in vitro. When correctly linked, the substantial surface area of mesoporous BAG allows for regulated multi-ion release without undue mechanical dilution.

Indication-Driven Selection Matrix for Dental Composites

A systematic framework for selecting the best material for dental composites based on clinical situation, mechanical demand, and aesthetic requirements is provided by an indication-driven selection matrix. For instance, bulk-fill composites are indicated where effective placement and deep cavity adaption are prioritized, whereas nanohybrid and nanofilled composites, with their superior strength and polishability, are advised for both anterior aesthetics and posterior load-bearing restorations.[35] Although its reduced filler load restricts their application in high-stress areas, flowable composites are perfect for lining, minimally invasive cavities, and sealing pits and cracks because of their lower viscosity and versatility. Bioactive and ion-releasing composites are becoming more and more recommended for restorations next to demineralized tooth structure or in individuals at high risk for cavities.[36] By balancing biofunctionality, durability, aesthetics, and ease of handling, such a matrix enables doctors to choose materials that are specific to the demands of each patient and the operating environment ([Table 4]).[37] [38]

Table 4 Indication-driven selection matrix

Indication	Substrate condition	Primary risks	Recommended composite strategy	Rationale
Deep Class II MOD, high load	Thin cusps, undermined dentin	Bulk fracture, cusp deflection	SFRC base (4–5 mm) + nanohybrid cap; occlusal onlay if cusp < 2 mm	Crack-stopping substructure improves fracture resistance and fatigue
Endodontically treated molar	Loss of marginal ridges	Catastrophic fracture	SFRC core + cuspal coverage onlay (CAD/CAM polymer or ceramic)	Dentin-like modulus and improved energy dissipation
High caries risk, cervical lesions	Erosive/abrasive wear	Secondary caries, marginal leakage	Giomer or NACP-reinforced composite; selective BAG varnish	Ion release buffers pH and promotes remineralization
Minimal-prep anterior veneer/addition	Enamel-rich	Color stability, finish	Nanofilled universal; consider ormocer for shrinkage control	High polish retention; low wear
Resin-bonded FPD/splint	Enamel bonding	Fatigue, debond	Continuous FRC framework + particulate veneer	High fatigue resistance; conservative prep

Abbreviations: BAG, bioactive glass; CAD/CAM, computer-aided design and manufacturing; FPD, fixed partial denture; FRC, fiber-reinforced composite; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; NACP, nano-amorphous calcium phosphate; SFRC, short-fiber reinforced composite.

Mechanical and Functional Notes for Various Dental Composites

Modern dental composites have different mechanical and functional characteristics, which allow them to be used in different clinical settings. Both anterior and posterior restorations can benefit from the high flexural strength, fracture toughness, and superior polish retention of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites.[39] Despite having a somewhat lower strength, bulk-fill composites may be used effectively in big voids because they have deeper curing and less polymerization shrinkage stress. The use of flowable composites is limited in high-load locations because to their poorer wear resistance, despite their higher flexibility and sealing in micropreparations.[40] [41] By adding antibacterial agents to prevent the establishment of biofilms and releasing fluoride, calcium, or phosphate ions to encourage remineralization, bioactive and ion-releasing composites provide a therapeutic element. Clinicians can choose materials that maximize restorative lifespan and patient oral health thanks to their combination of mechanical durability and biofunctional capabilities ([Table 5]).[42] [43]

Table 5 Representative mechanical and functional data points from the literature

Topic	Representative data point	Context/Notes
SFRC vs. flowable bulk-fills	SFRC flexural strength ∼146–157 MPa; KIC up to ∼2.8–4.6 MPa·m½	EverX Flow/SFRC studies show superior fracture toughness and depth of cure (≈5 mm) compared with flowable bulk-fills
Flowable bulk-fills	Flexural strength typically ≥ 80 MPa; polymerization shrinkage stress ∼2–3 MPa	Contemporary flowable bulk-fills meet ISO FS thresholds with moderate shrinkage stress
Fiber orientation and loading	FS and modulus rise with fiber wt% to ∼4–5%, decline beyond ∼6%	Aspect ratio and orientation critically influence reinforcement efficacy
Continuous FRC frameworks	High anisotropic modulus (20–40 GPa along fibers); excellent fatigue behavior	Suitable for adhesive bridges/splints; veneer with particulate composite
Bioactive (commercial) vs. universal	FS range ∼86–137 MPa in vitro	Some bioactive labeled materials show lower FS vs. universal composites; tradeoffs for ion release
Ion-releasing systems	BAG/MBG and (F)ACP increase remineralization indices and form apatite layers	In vitro/clinical surrogate endpoints (surface microhardness, QLF) support remineralization
Degree of conversion (DC)	Broad range 20–94% reported for flowables depending on depth/cure	DC depends on translucency, photoinitiators, and exposure protocol

Abbreviations: BAG, bioactive glass; (F)ACP, fluoride-enriched amorphous calcium phosphate; FRC, fiber-reinforced composite; FS, flexural strength; MBG, mesoporous bioactive glass; QLF, quantitative light-induced fluorescence; SFRC, short-fiber reinforced composite.

Clinical Guidance for Performance and Sustainability

Life is prolonged rather than replaced by designing restorations to be repairable by roughening, silica-coating, silanizing, and rebonding. To prevent fractures, short-fiber reinforced composites should be deliberately employed to replace dentin in big cavities and capped with wear-resistant nanohybrids.[44] For deeper layers or darker colors, curing optimization calls for prolonged exposure, maintaining the light tip near, and confirming irradiance. To minimize stress peaks and catastrophic fractures, matching modulus is essential, using fiber posts and frameworks that resemble dentin.[45] Where necessary, function should be targeted, for as by adding BAG or NACP or choosing giomer in high-risk margins, but excessive doping that impairs mechanics should be avoided. When endurance and low residual monomer are important considerations, high-conversion CAD/CAM blocks and BPA-free or bio-based solutions should be used.[46]

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Standardized sustainability measures are required, such as recyclability indices for various materials and procedures and the carbon footprint per repair. There is still no clinical data on the long-term color stability, wear, and pulpal safety of bio-based matrices and nanocellulose or graphene dopants. More research is needed to confirm the durability of self-healing devices under mechanical and thermal cycling and oral fluids. Potential avenues for shock-absorbing, repairable fixed restorations are represented by hybrid frameworks that combine fiber-reinforced cores with polymer-infiltrated ceramic veneers.

A new and sustainable aspect of restorative dentistry is introduced by incorporating environmentally friendly dental composites within the context of digital workflows and the circular economy. CAD/CAM solutions save waste and maximize restoration accuracy by enabling accurate material use.[47] Furthermore, quantifying the environmental effect of composite materials from manufacture to disposal is made possible by integrating lifecycle assessment tools into digital design platforms. This collaboration promotes a data-driven approach to material selection and waste reduction within the circular economy paradigm, improving clinical efficiency while also bringing dental practice into line with more general sustainability objectives.[48]

Future environmental standards and policy trends in dentistry may be significantly influenced by the incorporation of environmentally friendly dental composites into digital and circular frameworks. Regulations pertaining to material sourcing, biodegradability, and carbon footprint reporting may become more stringent as global health systems transition to sustainable health care models.[49] Standardized standards for evaluating dental materials' environmental performance should encourage producers to use circular manufacturing methods and spur innovation toward greener alternatives. In the end, dental improvements will make a significant contribution to global environmental stewardship if clinical materials research is in line with sustainability principles.[50]

Conclusion

Dental composites are rapidly evolving toward higher structural performance and added functions that directly target primary failure modes, while sustainability considerations are reshaping material selection and clinical protocols. Ion-releasing and antibacterial systems prevent secondary caries, industrially cured polymer networks offer high conversion and machinability, and short- and continuous-fiber topologies offer strong, repairable, and fatigue-resistant substructures. Validated BPA-free or bio-based matrices, intelligent reinforcement like continuous fiber and short-fiber composites, and tailored bioactivity are probably all part of the near-term route to sustainable composites. These techniques will increase longevity and reduce environmental impact when used with careful adhesive and curing procedures.

Fig. 1 Recent advances in ecofriendly composite.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

None.

• References

• 1 Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, Nag M. Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2019; 55 (01) 126-138
• 2 Zhang K, Zhang N, Weir MD, Reynolds MA, Bai Y, Xu HHK. Bioactive dental composites and bonding agents having remineralizing and antibacterial characteristics. Dent Clin North Am 2017; 61 (04) 669-687
• 3 Guerra M, Morgado M, Leira Y, Leitão T, Botelho J, Mendes JJ. Integrating sustainability in dentistry: a pathway towards achieving the UN 2030 agenda. Front Oral Health 2025; 6: 1549020
• 4 Dallaev R, Papež N, Allaham MM, Holcman V. Biodegradable polymers: properties, applications, and environmental impact. Polymers (Basel) 2025; 17 (14) 1981
• 5 Khurshid Z, Alqurashi H, Ashi H. Advancing environmental sustainability in dentistry and oral health. Eur J Gen Dent 2024; 13 (03) 264-268
• 6 Hong G, Yang J, Jin X. et al. Mechanical properties of nanohybrid resin composites containing various mass fractions of modified zirconia particles. Int J Nanomedicine 2020; 15: 9891-9907
• 7 Signore A, Solimei L, Arakelyan MG, Benedicenti S, Mollica C. A 24-month randomized clinical study of flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class III restorations. J Clin Exp Dent 2024; 16 (02) e111-e123
• 8 Garoushi S, Mangoush E, Vallittu M, Lassila L. Short fiber reinforced composite: a new alternative for direct onlay restorations. Open Dent J 2013; 7 (07) 181-185
• 9 Mannocci F, Bitter K, Sauro S, Ferrari P, Austin R, Bhuva B. Present status and future directions: the restoration of root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2022; 55 (Suppl 4, Suppl 4): 1059-1084
• 10 Scribante A, Vallittu PK, Özcan M, Lassila LVJ, Gandini P, Sfondrini MF. Travel beyond clinical uses of fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) in dentistry: a review of past employments, present applications, and future perspectives. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 1498901
• 11 Fathey IT, Azer AS, Abdelraheem IM. Fracture resistance and failure mode of three esthetic CAD-CAM post and core restorations. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24 (01) 523
• 12 Li Y, Liu M, Xue M. et al. Engineered biomaterials trigger remineralization and antimicrobial effects for dental caries restoration. Molecules 2023; 28 (17) 6373
• 13 Kumar P, Huo P, Zhang R, Liu B. Antibacterial properties of graphene-based nanomaterials. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2019; 9 (05) 737
• 14 Paladugu SRM, Sreekanth PSR, Sahu SK. et al. A comprehensive review of self-healing polymer, metal, and ceramic matrix composites and their modeling aspects for aerospace applications. Materials (Basel) 2022; 15 (23) 8521
• 15 Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Fischer NG. et al. Wear of resin composites: current insights into underlying mechanisms, evaluation methods and influential factors. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2018; 54 (02) 76-87
• 16 Sookhakiyan M, Tavana S, Azarnia Y, Bagheri R. Fracture toughness of nanohybrid and hybrid composites stored wet and dry up to 60 days. J Dent Biomater 2017; 4 (01) 341-346
• 17 Schmeiser F, Schramm W, Mayinger F, Baumert U, Stawarczyk B. Effect of filler type, content, and silanization on the flexural strength, elastic modulus, shore D hardness, and two-body wear of PAEK compounds. Materials (Basel) 2025; 18 (12) 2736
• 18 Dionysopoulos D, Gerasimidou O. Wear of contemporary dental composite resin restorations: a literature review. Restor Dent Endod 2021; 46 (02) e18
• 19 Kowalska A, Sokolowski J, Gozdek T, Krasowski M, Kopacz K, Bociong K. The influence of various photoinitiators on the properties of commercial dental composites. Polymers (Basel) 2021; 13 (22) 3972
• 20 Kowalska A, Sokolowski J, Bociong K. The photoinitiators used in resin based dental composite-a review and future perspectives. Polymers (Basel) 2021; 13 (03) 470
• 21 Chan KHS, Mai Y, Kim H, Tong KCT, Ng D, Hsiao JCM. Review: resin composite filling. Materials (Basel) 2010; 3 (02) 1228-1243
• 22 Zhang J, Yang Y, Chen Y. et al. A review of new generation of dental restorative resin composites with antibacterial, remineralizing and self-healing capabilities. Discov Nano 2024; 19 (01) 189
• 23 Essawy MM, Al Achy SN, Talaat DM. et al. Fluoridated silver nanocomposites for caries management: an in-vitro assessment of the cytological and antibacterial profiles. BMC Oral Health 2025; 25 (01) 363
• 24 Alyahya Y. A narrative review of minimally invasive techniques in restorative dentistry. Saudi Dent J 2024; 36 (02) 228-233
• 25 Ved M, Kinariwala N, Singh A. et al. The impact of smart materials in restorative dentistry and endodontics from innovation to application: a narrative review. Cureus 2025; 17 (04) e82858
• 26 Garoushi S, Akbaşak-Sungur AÖ, Erkut S, Vallittu PK, Uctasli S, Lassila L. Evaluation of fracture behavior in short fiber-reinforced direct and indirect overlay restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27 (09) 5449-5458
• 27 Parra Gatica E, Duran Ojeda G, Wendler M. Contemporary flowable bulk-fill resin-based composites: a systematic review. Biomater Investig Dent 2023; 10 (01) 8-19
• 28 Alshabib A, Abid Althaqafi K, AlMoharib HS, Mirah M, AlFawaz YF, Algamaiah H. Dental fiber-post systems: an in-depth review of their evolution, current practice and future directions. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023; 10 (05) 551
• 29 Bae KB, Choi JY, Cho YT. et al. Impact of post adhesion on stress distribution: an in silico study. Restor Dent Endod 2025; 50 (02) e19
• 30 Sun Y, Zhou Z, Jiang H. et al. Preparation and evaluation of novel bio-based Bis-GMA-free dental composites with low estrogenic activity. Dent Mater 2022; 38 (02) 281-293
• 31 Herrera-González AM, Pérez-Mondragón AA, Cuevas-Suárez CE. Evaluation of bio-based monomers from isosorbide used in the formulation of dental composite resins. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 100: 103371
• 32 Huyang G, Debertin AE, Sun J. Design and development of self-healing dental composites. Mater Des 2016; 94: 295-302
• 33 Mahapatra H, Bedia S, Ramasubramanian A, Joshi M, Ghadage M, Bedia A. Upgrading rstorative dentistry with graphene nanoparticles: a review. Iranian J Mater Sci Eng 2023; 20 (03)
• 34 Banerjee AN. Graphene and its derivatives as biomedical materials: future prospects and challenges. Interface Focus 2018; 8 (03) 20170056
• 35 Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, Lamas-Lara C, Khan AS, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12 (08) 1786
• 36 Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (06) ZE18-ZE24
• 37 Chen FM, Liu X. Advancing biomaterials of human origin for tissue engineering. Prog Polym Sci 2016; 53: 86-168
• 38 Cribb A, Pullin G. Aesthetics for everyday quality: one way to enrich healthcare improvement debates. Med Humanit 2022; 48 (04) 480-488
• 39 Ferracane JL. A historical perspective on dental composite restorative materials. J Funct Biomater 2024; 15 (07) 173
• 40 Abbasi M, Moradi Z, Mirzaei M, Kharazifard MJ, Rezaei S, Rezaei S. Polymerization shrinkage of five bulk-fill composite resins in comparison with a conventional composite resin. J Dent (Tehran) 2018; 15 (06) 365-374
• 41 Mulla SA, Kondkari SA, Patil A. et al. A look into the cytotoxicity of composite fillings: friend or foe?. Cureus 2023; 15 (10) e46327
• 42 Melo MAS, Garcia IM, Mokeem L. et al. Developing bioactive dental resins for restorative dentistry. J Dent Res 2023; 102 (11) 1180-1190
• 43 Yang Q, Li F, Ye Y, Zhang X. Antimicrobial, remineralization, and infiltration: advanced strategies for interrupting dental caries. Med Rev (Berl) 2024; 5 (02) 87-116
• 44 Nezir M, Dinçtürk BA, Sarı C, Alp CK, Altınışık H. Effect of fiber-reinforced direct restorative materials on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored with a conservative endodontic cavity design. Clin Oral Investig 2024; 28 (06) 316
• 45 Marinescu AG, Abuabboud O, Zimbru ŞD. et al. Influence of the fiber post length on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023; 59 (10) 1797
• 46 Ayman AD. The residual monomer content and mechanical properties of CADresins used in the fabrication of complete dentures as compared to heat cured resins. Electron Physician 2017; 9 (07) 4766-4772
• 47 Yeslam HE, Freifrau von Maltzahn N, Nassar HM. Revolutionizing CAD/CAM-based restorative dental processes and materials with artificial intelligence: a concise narrative review. PeerJ 2024; 12: e17793
• 48 Falsafi A, Togiani A, Colley A, Varis J, Horttanainen M. Life cycle assessment in circular design process: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2025; 521: 146188
• 49 Chalotra R, Shenoy R, Dasson Bajaj P. et al. A scoping review exploring carbon emissions in dentistry-a step towards sustainability. BMC Oral Health 2025; 25 (01) 1674
• 50 Shinkai RSA, Biazevic MGH, Michel-Crosato E, de Campos TT. Environmental sustainability related to dental materials and procedures in prosthodontics: a critical review. J Prosthet Dent 2025; 133 (06) 1466-1473

Publication History

Article published online:
02 February 2026