Next Article in Journal
Drag Reduction and Efficiency Enhancement in Wide-Range Electric Submersible Centrifugal Pumps via Bio-Inspired Non-Smooth Surfaces: A Combined Numerical and Experimental Study
Previous Article in Journal
Joint Optimization of Caching and Recommendation with Performance Guarantee for Effective Content Delivery in IoT
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Selection of Resin-Based Dental Restorative Materials: A Pilot Study on Professional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Selection Criteria

by
Anna Kontakou Zoniou
1,
Maria Antoniadou
1,2,* and
Sofia Saridou
1
1
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str.,11527 Athens, Greece
2
Systemic Analyst Program (CSAP), University of Piraeus, 18534 Piraeus, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(14), 7987; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147987
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 11 July 2025 / Accepted: 15 July 2025 / Published: 17 July 2025

Abstract

Resin-based restorative materials are widely used for direct dental restorations due to their versatility and esthetic appeal. However, selecting the most appropriate material involves multifactorial considerations, including clinical demands, practitioner preferences, and professional background. This pilot study aimed to investigate the factors influencing the selection of resin-based restorative materials among dental clinicians at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. A structured questionnaire comprising 23 closed-ended and 5 open-ended items was administered to 87 clinicians between October 2023 and January 2025. The survey assessed material preferences for anterior and posterior restorations, along with demographic, economic, and environmental influences. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, and Mann–Whitney U tests (SPSS v29). Findings revealed that clinicians with over five years of experience demonstrated significantly greater knowledge of material composition (r = 0.230) and shelf life (r = 0.223). These practitioners favored specialized materials, whereas those with less experience emphasized anatomical and esthetic attributes. For posterior restorations, 75.9% of respondents preferred packable composites. Involvement in procurement processes correlated positively with familiarity with ISO specifications (r = 0.254). While environmental concerns were noted, they were generally secondary, with gender-based differences observed in prioritization. These results underline the importance of targeted continuing education to enhance evidence-based material selection in restorative dentistry.

1. Introduction

In contemporary dental practice, composite resin has been a material of choice for direct restorations for decades [1]. The selection of these materials is crucial for ensuring the effectiveness and longevity of dental treatments [2]. Dentists frequently face the challenge of using a wide variety of products, aiming to meet clinical demands while also aligning with their individual preferences and the realities of their professional setting [3]. For instance, when treating a patient with bruxism in the posterior region, a dentist may focus on a composite material with high fracture resistance, whereas for an anterior restoration, esthetic properties may take precedence [4]. The pursuit of the ideal restorative material in dentistry focuses on identifying options that offer long-term stability, successful integration with adjacent tissues, and the ability to withstand functional stress without compromising their structural integrity [5,6]. However, composite resin restorations face numerous challenges in the oral environment, necessitating the maintenance of their intended chemical and mechanical properties over time [4,5,7].
Various methodologies have been employed to evaluate dental materials and ascertain their clinical suitability [8]. Manufacturers strive to develop materials that closely mimic the characteristics of natural teeth, yet achieving perfect replication remains an ongoing challenge [9,10]. To address these complex demands, different classification systems and testing protocols have been created to enhance the performance capabilities of restorative materials [11,12]. ISO standards delineate the requirements and specifications that ensure optimal performance in dental services while safeguarding both practitioners and patients [8]. These standards encompass essential aspects like material composition, physical properties, functional characteristics, and testing procedures to verify their efficacy [11,12]. ISO 4049:2019 specifically outlines requirements for polymer-based restorative materials, ensuring they comply with certain criteria for water sorption, solubility, and compressive strength, which are crucial for clinical success [1,10,13]. Considering that many products utilized in everyday dental practice conform to specific ISO standards, it is essential to assess how much dentists consider these factors when choosing materials for conservative restorations based on well-defined criteria [14,15,16,17].
The decision-making process in relation to restorative materials in dentistry is multifaceted and is influenced by several factors [18]. The individual characteristics of dentists and clinical considerations such as age, experience, and level of education are most likely to affect the type of restoration that would be performed and the choice of material that could be used [19]. More experienced dentists may have their own approaches to the choice of materials since they have had more time to observe their clinical effectiveness [20,21]. However, recent graduates may prefer to use new materials and methods that they have learned at university [22,23]. In addition, sustainability and recyclability are gradually becoming important factors that affect purchasing decisions [24,25,26]. For instance, some manufacturers are now offering composite packaging that is made from recycled materials or have taken-back programs for used dental products to practitioners who are concerned with the environment [27,28,29]. These elements underline the complexity of the overall problem and the difficulty of selecting appropriate resin-based restorative materials for specific clinical situations.
Despite considerable research into the factors influencing preferences for different dental products, there remains a notable gap in the literature regarding the evaluation of restorative material selection in dentistry. This study aims to address this multifaceted research void by adopting a comprehensive approach to selecting resin-based restorative materials. Through a survey-based methodology, gathering data on material choices, decision-making criteria, and awareness of environmental factors, it explores how clinical requirements, individual practitioner preferences, and external influences, such as economic and environmental considerations, affect these choices. The null hypothesis of this study posits that there is no significant relationship between dentists’ selection of resin-based restorative materials and influencing factors such as clinical requirements, individual practitioner preferences, economic considerations, or environmental awareness. In addressing this hypothesis, this study explores several key research questions. More specifically, it seeks to determine which clinical criteria dentists prioritize when choosing resin-based restorative materials and how practitioner-specific characteristics, such as professional experience, area of specialization, and level of knowledge, affect these decisions. Furthermore, this study examines the role of external influences, including the cost and availability of materials, brand reputation, and broader economic factors. Finally, it investigates the extent to which environmental awareness plays a role in material selection and whether demographic or professional differences correspond to variations in their preferences.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample

This cross-sectional study employed a questionnaire-based research design, a widely accepted method in healthcare research for collecting large volumes of data efficiently and systematically [30]. The structured questionnaire used in this study was carefully designed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of dentists’ knowledge levels, professional backgrounds, and preferences regarding resin-based restorative materials [31,32]. This study was conducted between October 2023 and January 2025 and involved a total of 87 dentists employed at the Department of Dentistry of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The objective was to evaluate their knowledge of resin-based restorative materials and to identify the key criteria influencing their selection for anterior and posterior restorations. This study adheres to the principles of ethical conduct in research involving human subjects and is conducted following the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Department of Dentistry (16.05.2024/44982). The study sample consisted of dental clinicians currently affiliated with the Department of Dentistry at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Exclusion criteria included dental students, individuals from non-dental disciplines, and those who did not provide informed consent.

2.2. Questionnaire Design

A structured questionnaire served as the primary data collection instrument for this study [33]. The questionnaire was developed based on current literature, expert input from restorative dentistry faculty, and preliminary pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance [34]. More specifically, a panel of two experts reviewed the items, and their feedback was incorporated. Then, a pilot test was conducted with a sample of ten participants from the target population to assess the clarity of the questions and the internal consistency of the scales. Minor revisions to wording were made based on participants’ feedback. The internal consistency of the final questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, which was 0.8, indicating acceptable reliability. We acknowledge that although further psychometric evaluation, including assessment of construct validity (e.g., via exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis) and test–retest reliability would help our methodology, it was beyond the scope of the present study but strongly recommended for future research to further establish the instrument.
The questionnaire comprised multiple sections, including: (1) demographic information (e.g., age, gender), (2) professional characteristics (e.g., years of clinical experience, postgraduate education, employment setting), (3) knowledge assessment related to resin-based materials [30,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], (4) material selection preferences for anterior and posterior restorations [16,20], and (5) influencing factors such as clinical, economic, and environmental considerations [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54].
The final questionnaire included closed-ended questions, multiple-choice items, and Likert-scale statements grouped into four main sections: demographic information, professional characteristics, knowledge of resin materials, and selection preferences for anterior and posterior restorations. Seven items were structured using 5-point Likert-type scales. These questions aimed to assess respondents’ perceived importance, frequency of behaviors, level of agreement, and awareness regarding various aspects of resin-based restorative materials. The Likert scales followed consistent formats, ranging from “Not important at all” to “Most important,” “Never” to “Always,” or “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree,” depending on the content of each question.
More analytically, the questionnaire comprised 23 closed-ended and 5 open-ended questions focused on the decision-making process for selecting resin-based restorative materials, tailored to individual preferences and specific clinical scenarios. It was divided into five sections: The first section included information about the demographics (Part A: Q1–Q5), the second section included general questions concerning each dentist’s personal experience with restorative materials (Part B: Q6–Q12), the third part of the questionnaire included questions related to issues regarding the specifications of resin-based restorative materials and their selection criterion for posterior and anterior teeth (Part C: Q13–Q18). The fourth part contained questions addressing other influential factors during the procurement methods of these materials (Part D: Q19–Q23), and in the final part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to answer open-ended questions related to the subject (Part E: Q24–28) (Appendix A).

2.3. Bias Control Strategies

To reduce potential bias, several strategies were implemented throughout the research process [55]. Selection bias was minimized by including a diverse sample of 87 dentists from the Department of Dentistry, encompassing a range of clinical experience levels, specialties, and work environments. Response bias was addressed by ensuring participant anonymity and confidentiality, encouraging honest and accurate responses without fear of judgment or professional repercussions [56]. Additionally, the questionnaire avoided leading or suggestive language to reduce measurement bias [56]. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed that there were no right or wrong answers, which helped to reduce social desirability bias, a common issue in self-reported surveys, where respondents may answer in ways they perceive to be more professionally acceptable [57,58]. Finally, data integrity was further ensured through careful data-cleaning procedures, including checks for incomplete responses, outliers, and inconsistencies [59]. Missing data were managed appropriately to avoid skewing results, and non-parametric methods were chosen for analysis where normal distribution assumptions were not met [60]. These methodological precautions aimed to overall enhance the reliability and validity of the study findings [61].

2.4. Data Collection and Processing

Participants were recruited through email invitations and announcements during departmental seminars. Data were collected using printed and electronic formats of the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and all responses were anonymized. Out of approximately 125 clinicians invited, 87 responded, resulting in a response rate of 69.6%. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 29. Before analysis, data were cleaned and checked for normality, outliers, and missing values to ensure the reliability of statistical results. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods to identify significant trends and associations. Descriptive statistics, including means (M), standard deviations (SD), frequencies (N), and percentages (%), were calculated to summarize the demographic characteristics of the sample and the distribution of responses for each selection criterion. Categorical variables were transformed into dummy variables and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to determine the strength and direction of associations between professional characteristics (such as gender, age, clinical experience, postgraduate education, and employment setting) and factors influencing resin material selection. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with stronger relationships considered at p < 0.01. Additionally, non-parametric Mann–Whitney tests were conducted to compare distributions between groups, particularly for variables such as gender (male vs. female) and employment setting (private practice vs. other). These tests allowed for the identification of statistically significant differences in material selection preferences between different professional subgroups. Generally, all our analyses were univariate, and no multivariate models were applied to control for potential confounding variables. Future studies with larger samples should consider multivariate approaches to account for possible interactions among variables.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

The study sample comprised a balanced mix of dentists, with a slightly higher percentage of females (55.2%), predominantly under the age of 45 (65.5%), which may indicate a younger workforce engaging in resin restorative treatments and mostly educated at domestic dental schools (82.8%). Approximately half of the participants (50.6%) had less than five years of clinical experience, and more than half (54.0%) did not pursue further specialization, while 33.3% did. Similarly, regarding employment settings, 55.2% of respondents worked in private clinics, whereas only 21.8% were employed in public dental clinics. Also, the frequency of purchasing resin restorative materials varied, with 31.0% of respondents acquiring them more than twice per year, 31.0% not being personally responsible for procurement, 14.0% obtaining them through stock sales, and 12.0% ordering them when their previous supply ran out. The clinical practice of resin restorations was also heterogeneous, as 63.9% performed fewer than 20 composite resin restorations per week.

3.2. Knowledge About Resin Materials

3.2.1. Knowledge Levels in Resin Materials and Correlation with Professional Characteristics

Dentists demonstrated varying levels of knowledge regarding resin restorative materials across several domains. Practical aspects such as application methods and material types scored highest among participants, suggesting that these aspects of resin materials are well understood by the surveyed professionals. The shelf life of resin materials also received a relatively high mean score, indicating moderate familiarity among participants. Conversely, composition and biocompatibility show lower mean scores, which may indicate gaps in knowledge regarding the chemical properties and biological interactions of resin materials. The side effects of resin materials have one of the lowest mean scores, implying a potential area where further education and awareness may be needed (Figure 1).
The correlations between various professional characteristics and knowledge regarding different aspects of resin restorative materials are featured in Table 1. The results indicate that age (r = 0.236, p < 0.05) and clinical experience over five years (r = 0.214, p < 0.05) are positively correlated with general knowledge about resin materials. Notably, clinical experience also shows significant positive associations with knowledge of material composition (r = 0.230, p < 0.05) and shelf life (r = 0.223, p < 0.05), further emphasizing that familiarity with resin materials accumulates with professional practice.
Gender does not appear to significantly influence knowledge, except for biocompatibility, where female dentists report significantly lower knowledge scores (r = −0.248, p < 0.05) compared to their male counterparts. Interestingly, frequent purchases of resin restorative materials do not significantly correlate with increased knowledge, indicating that purchasing behavior does not necessarily reflect a deeper understanding of the materials. However, dentists performing more than 20 composite resin restorations per week demonstrate a trend towards greater knowledge across most domains, significantly in composition (r = 0.206) and method of application (r = 0.100), though these correlations do not reach statistical significance (Table 1).

3.2.2. Dentists’ Familiarity and Priorities in Resin Material Selection: Specifications, Features, and Sustainability

The findings in Table 2 demonstrate dentists’ familiarity with specifications and priority features when selecting resin restorative materials. Most respondents (71.4%) reported familiarity with resin material specifications, indicating a strong awareness of regulatory or technical guidelines governing material selection. However, 28.6% stated that they were not familiar with these specifications, revealing a potential gap in knowledge that could be addressed through continuing education and training programs.
Regarding the importance of material compliance with specifications, more than half (54.0%) considered it quite important, while 32.2% regarded it as very important. This indicates that while compliance is widely acknowledged as significant, a notable percentage (13.8%) rated it as only moderately important, implying that other factors, such as handling properties or price, might sometimes take precedence.
In terms of priority features for material selection, bending strength (34.6%) and biocompatibility (25.9%) were the most highly rated characteristics, demonstrating a strong emphasis on mechanical durability and patient safety. Water absorbency and photopolymerization depth were rated lower.
The final section of Table 2 addresses the preference for green practices relative to ISO compliance. A large majority (40.2%) prioritized ISO standards over green practices, while 54.9% indicated that environmental considerations depend on the specific material specifications. Only 4.9% of respondents were fully committed to green practices regardless of compliance. This suggests that while sustainability is acknowledged, it is often weighed against regulatory compliance and material performance, reinforcing the idea that environmental initiatives should be integrated within existing ISO standards rather than replacing them.

3.3. Selection of Resin Materials

Resin Selection in Anterior and Posterior Restorations

The selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior restorations highlight differences in decision-making factors between these two types of restorations (Figure 2). The results show that anatomical features of the restoration were the most frequently cited criterion for both anterior (54.0%) and posterior (55.2%) restorations. More specifically, for anterior restorations, transparency and opacity of neighboring teeth (56.3%) and color of neighboring teeth (50.6%) were highly influential factors, reflecting the emphasis on esthetics in anterior regions. Conversely, these factors were less frequently considered for posterior restorations, with color being relevant for only 28.7% of cases. Moreover, the interdental space was a more significant factor in posterior restorations (27.6%) than in anterior ones (16.1%), likely due to the need for strong contact points and structural stability in posterior occlusion. Notably, a lack of specific selection criteria was more common in posterior restorations (27.6%) compared to anterior restorations (6.9%), indicating that dentists may adopt a more flexible approach when selecting materials for posterior teeth. Finally, a distinctive finding is that special anterior resins were used by 36.8% of dentists for anterior restorations, reporting on the demand for highly esthetic and technique-sensitive materials in the visible esthetic dental zone. This factor was not relevant for posterior restorations, where other material properties such as durability and resistance to occlusal forces likely play a more dominant role.
For extensive immediate esthetic restorations of posterior teeth, the majority of respondents (75.9%) selected packable composite resin as their material of choice, reflecting its widespread acceptance for posterior restorations due to its mechanical properties, wear resistance, and ability to provide esthetic results. The high prevalence of this choice aligns with modern restorative trends that favor composite resins over traditional materials such as amalgam (4.6%). Bulk-fill resin was chosen by 34.5% of practitioners, indicating a substantial preference for materials that allow for more efficient placement techniques while maintaining sufficient strength for posterior load-bearing areas [62]. Bulk-fill resins are known for their reduced polymerization shrinkage and improved depth of cure, making them a practical alternative to traditional layering techniques [63,64]. A smaller proportion (16.1%) opted for flowable composites, which are typically used as liners or in combination with other restorative materials rather than as a standalone material for extensive restorations. The use of glass ionomer cement was minimal (5.7%), likely due to its lower wear resistance and mechanical strength, making it less suitable for high-stress posterior restorations [65].

3.4. Professional Characteristics and Resin Material Selection

The selection criteria differed significantly between anterior and posterior restorations based on clinical experience. For anterior restorations, the most frequently reported selection criterion was the anatomical features to be achieved (54.0%), followed closely by transparency and opacity (56.3%) and the color of neighboring teeth (50.6%). Notably, less experienced dentists (70.5%) were significantly more likely to consider anatomical features compared to those with more than five years of experience (37.2%). In contrast, experienced clinicians preferred using special anterior resins (51.2%), whereas only 22.7% of less experienced dentists selected this criterion. In addition, for posterior restorations, a similar trend was observed, anatomical features remained the most important criterion, (55.2%). Less experienced dentists were more likely to prioritize anatomical considerations (65.9%) than their more experienced counterparts (44.2%). Additionally, a higher proportion of experienced dentists (32.6%) reported using whatever material was available in stock compared to their less experienced counterparts (22.7%) (Table 3).
The selection of resin restorative materials influenced by dentists’ professional characteristics, including clinical experience, age, postgraduate education, and workload is presented in Table 4.
For anterior restorations, a significant negative correlation was found between clinical experience and the importance assigned to anatomical features (r = −0.334, p < 0.05), suggesting that more experienced dentists rely less on anatomical considerations when selecting materials. Similarly, performing over 20 restorations per week was negatively correlated with prioritizing anatomical features (r = −0.315, p < 0.05). Notably, the use of special anterior resins was positively correlated with both postgraduate studies (r = 0.337, p < 0.05) and clinical experience (r = 0.295, p < 0.05). Additionally, for posterior restorations, clinical experience was negatively correlated with prioritizing anatomical features (r = −0.218, p < 0.05). No significant relationships were found between purchasing frequency and material selection, indicating that procurement habits do not necessarily dictate material selection criteria.
The variety of professional characteristics and familiarity with material specifications, importance of compliance, prioritized features, and preferences for green practices in resin restorative material selection are demonstrated in Table 5. A key finding in Table 5 is that clinical experience (r = 0.231, p < 0.05) and frequent purchasing of resin materials (r = 0.254, p < 0.05) were positively correlated with familiarity with material specifications. Conversely, those not responsible for supply were significantly less familiar with specifications (r = −0.341, p < 0.05), highlighting the role of procurement responsibility in material literacy.
Regarding the importance of compliance with specifications, no statistically significant correlations were found with professional characteristics. In feature prioritization, biocompatibility was significantly correlated with gender (r = 0.232, p < 0.05), revealing that female dentists may have the tendency to place higher importance on patient safety in material selection. Meanwhile, bending strength was negatively correlated with clinical experience (r = −0.233, p < 0.05), implying that less experienced dentists may overemphasize mechanical durability, whereas experienced clinicians might consider a broader range of factors. The preference for green practices showed an interesting trend. Those purchasing resin materials frequently were significantly more likely to prioritize environmental considerations (r = 0.211, p < 0.05). However, ISO compliance remained the dominant concern for most respondents, regardless of experience or background.
Further, Figure 3 illustrates the importance of environmental factors when purchasing resin restorative materials for conservative restorations, segmented by gender. A weak but statistically significant association was observed, with female dentists reporting slightly higher importance on environmental considerations than male dentists. The highest proportion of respondents who rated environmental factors as “very important” or “the most important” were female dentists (22.99% and 12.64%, respectively), while only 10.34% and 4.60% of male dentists rated them as highly significant. Conversely, a larger percentage of male dentists (13.79%) rated environmental factors as only “somewhat important” compared to females (5.75%). A small percentage of both male and female respondents (3.45% and 1.15%, respectively) did not consider environmental factors important at all.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing the selection of resin-based restorative materials among practicing dentists, with particular attention to the role of professional characteristics, clinical experience, and procurement responsibilities. The findings offer important insights into how these variables interact with material knowledge, specification awareness, and clinical decision-making, contributing to the existing literature on restorative material selection. The observed correlations, although statistically significant, were weak to modest (r ≈ 0.2–0.3) and should not be interpreted as strong predictors but rather as indicative of potential associations requiring further investigation in a larger sample.

4.1. Influence of Professional Characteristics on Material Selection

This study confirmed that professional characteristics, most notably clinical experience and procurement involvement, play a central role in the selection of resin-based restorative materials, as also reported elsewhere [4]. Most participants were under the age of 45, reflecting a younger demographic actively engaged in restorative procedures, consistent with recent findings [66]. Within this group, those with greater clinical experience demonstrated significantly higher knowledge of material composition and shelf life, primarily regarding ISO specifications and mechanical properties. Furthermore, experienced dentists in this study were more likely to select specialized resin materials, in particular for anterior restorations, demonstrating a preference for advanced, esthetically driven options that require a higher level of clinical competence. In contrast, less experienced practitioners placed greater emphasis on anatomical detailing and basic esthetic parameters, such as shape and shade matching. These observations are consistent with the findings of Lorenz et al. (2024) [67], who reported that expert evaluators tend to assess anterior restorations with a more critical and detailed understanding of material performance and esthetic integration compared to less experienced clinicians. It was also demonstrated that expert evaluators apply more refined and critical criteria when assessing anterior restorations, emphasizing subtle esthetic integration and long-term performance. Moreover, this supports the conclusions of Al-Asmar et al. (2021) [68], who emphasized that clinical decision-making in restorative dentistry becomes increasingly evidence-based with professional maturity, as more experienced practitioners tend to rely on a broader integration of clinical evidence, patient-specific factors, and material science. Overall, these results show that experience not only shapes material preferences but also informs the depth and quality of esthetic evaluation in anterior restorative procedures [67].

4.2. Tooth Regional Differences in Resin Material Criteria

Our data indicate that dentists apply distinct selection criteria based on the anatomical location of the restoration, a finding that aligns with previous work by Girotto et al. (2021) who reported significant variation in restorative approaches between anterior and posterior regions due to differences in esthetic expectations and functional demands [69]. In this study, esthetic attributes, such as transparency, opacity, and shade-matching, were prioritized for anterior restorations, where visual integration with the surrounding dentition is essential. Conversely, posterior restorations were more strongly associated with the prioritization of mechanical properties, including wear resistance, compressive strength, and fracture toughness, due to their exposure to higher occlusal forces. These results correspond to findings elsewhere where it is emphasized that the selection of posterior restorative materials is predominantly influenced by their ability to withstand long-term functional stress rather than their esthetic qualities [70]. Similarly, it was highlighted that the anatomical region plays a decisive role in material selection, as anterior restorations demand superior optical properties and polishability, whereas posterior restorations require enhanced strength, marginal integrity, and low wear [16]. Taken together, these findings suggest that clinicians adapt their material selection strategies in response to the specific biomechanical and esthetic requirements of the restoration site, thereby reinforcing the importance of site-specific material knowledge in clinical decision-making [71].
Moreover, less experienced dentists in this study placed greater emphasis on anatomical features and optical properties, particularly in anterior restorations, highlighting a focus on visual accuracy and surface morphology. In contrast, clinicians with more than five years of experience preferred specialized anterior composites, reflecting a shift toward advanced materials with superior esthetic integration, polishability, and long-term performance. This aligns with evidence that clinical expertise is associated with more sophisticated techniques and a broader understanding of material behavior in esthetically demanding cases [20,21]. Recent studies also report that the long-term success of anterior restorations in cases of localized wear is more closely linked to the use of high-performance materials and tailored protocols, which are typically employed by experienced clinicians [72]. Furthermore, the increasing adoption of chairside CAD/CAM technology, customized resin composites, and emerging 3D-printed resin-based materials supports the notion that advanced restorative options are more commonly utilized by seasoned practitioners [73]. In particular, 3D-printed resin-based composites have recently been shown to be viable for permanent indirect restorations, offering mechanical properties, marginal adaptation, and esthetic outcomes comparable to traditional CAD/CAM blocks [73,74,75]. These findings indicate that greater clinical experience may contribute to more informed material selection, enabling durable and aesthetically precise anterior restorations. A more detailed exploration of these emerging materials and technologies would be better suited to a separate article specifically addressing advances in restorative dentistry.

4.3. Procurement Responsibility and Specification Awareness

Additionally, procurement responsibility was positively associated in this study with greater knowledge of material standards, including ISO certification, product longevity, and regulatory compliance. Dentists who were directly involved in the acquisition of resin-based restorative materials demonstrated higher familiarity with manufacturer specifications and performance data, suggesting that active engagement with procurement processes may facilitate deeper material literacy [5,48]. This finding highlights the role of hands-on exposure to product documentation and supplier communication in supporting evidence-based clinical decisions. It aligns with previous studies showing that involvement in supply chain processes and sustainability-oriented training enhances a more informed and proactive approach to material evaluation and procurement [76,77]. In dental practice, similar mechanisms to those observed in broader organizational and healthcare contexts may operate, as suggested by our data. Clinicians involved in material procurement appeared more attuned to regulatory compliance, product innovation, and life-cycle performance, consistent with findings that direct engagement in procurement enhances both technical knowledge and strategic awareness of product standards [78].
In addition, dentists with frequent purchasing responsibilities showed greater familiarity with ISO specifications and material performance indicators in our study. This finding aligns with broader evidence that procurement is a key leverage point for embedding quality and environmental standards into clinical practice [79]. Similarly, dental professionals engaged with environmental issues, particularly those in decision-making roles, are more likely to integrate sustainability principles into workflows [80]. Our results reinforce this pattern, suggesting that procurement responsibilities can promote both regulatory compliance and environmentally responsible practices. Enhancing procurement literacy may, therefore, serve as an effective strategy to improve material competence and sustainability awareness in dental practice [81].
Interestingly, although many participants emphasized the importance of ISO compliance, especially ISO 4049:2019 [13], which defines the physical and mechanical properties of resin-based restorative materials, no significant correlation was found between professional characteristics (e.g., age, experience, postgraduate education) and the priority given to regulatory adherence. This suggests that adherence to standards is viewed as a fundamental expectation, irrespective of demographic or experiential factors. These findings are consistent with previous research reporting that ISO compliance is universally recognized as essential for clinical success and patient safety [17]. Finally, the absence of variation in attitudes toward compliance in our data reinforces the notion that regulatory awareness is now a normative expectation in restorative dentistry, reflecting both professional training and institutional procurement practices. This widespread consensus may indicate the successful dissemination of ISO-related knowledge through dental education and continuing professional development, establishing compliance not as a differentiator but as a foundational aspect of responsible clinical practice [82].

4.4. Sustainability and Gender-Based Preferences

Environmental sustainability emerged as a secondary, yet increasingly relevant, consideration among respondents in this study. According to our findings, dentists who are women more often consider biocompatibility when selecting materials, which suggests a gender-based preference for patient safety considerations. This attitude aligns with previous studies in which female practitioners are generally more responsive to environmental and health-related concerns in clinical settings [49,80]. Despite this trend, only a limited proportion of respondents identified sustainability as a primary or high-priority factor in material selection. This finding aligns with observations that, although sustainability is gaining visibility in dental discourse, it is not yet fully integrated into routine decision-making [83]. Other studies have similarly highlighted the early stage of sustainability awareness in product marketing and procurement, where environmental considerations often remain secondary to technical performance, cost, and brand familiarity [26]. While recognition of environmentally responsible dentistry is growing among certain demographic groups, the incorporation of sustainable criteria into restorative material selection remains limited. The key challenge ahead is to translate awareness into action by embedding environmental performance within existing regulatory and quality standards [26,80,83]. As shown in previous research [27], awareness of sustainability in dental practice is growing, but its practical application in material selection is hindered by the lack of formal guidance and standardized environmental criteria. Similarly, the absence of dedicated eco-certification systems for dental products makes it challenging for practitioners to systematically assess the environmental impact of restorative materials [46]. So, although sustainability was acknowledged by some participants, our findings indicate that it is rarely translated into clinical decision-making or procurement practices. Future research and institutional policies could explore how environmental factors such as recyclability, carbon footprint, and material lifespan can be formally integrated into healthcare guidelines and procurement procedures. Embedding sustainability indicators into standard material selection frameworks could help dental practices align more closely with environmental and public health goals.
Also in our study, ISO compliance remained the dominant criterion across all professional groups, though the underlying interest in sustainability suggests potential to align environmental goals with existing regulations. Recent perspectives suggest incorporating environmental performance metrics into standard procurement and quality assurance protocols [24]. This approach could embed sustainability into clinical workflows, enabling environmentally informed decisions without compromising safety or efficacy. Our findings reinforce this need, highlighting the importance of developing comprehensive, practice-relevant eco-standards that complement existing ISO regulations [84].
Further the prioritization of material features in this study also varied by gender and experience. Female dentists placed greater emphasis on biocompatibility, reflecting a stronger focus on patient safety and biological compatibility of materials. Conversely, less experienced clinicians prioritized mechanical properties, particularly bending strength, possibly reflecting a reliance on measurable, tangible criteria during early clinical practice. This divergence aligns with recent findings on gender-related patterns in dental education and career orientation [85]. Studies show that female dental students tend to prioritize patient-centered outcomes and long-term clinical effects, while male students focus more on technical aspects of care [86]. These differences may persist in clinical practice, shaping material preferences through varied emphasis on biological performance, mechanical efficiency, or esthetic adaptability [87]. Understanding how gender and experience influence material selection can inform more tailored and inclusive approaches in dental education, procurement policies, and evidence-based practice [85]. Incorporating these perspectives into curricula and training supports equity, relevance, and practitioner engagement, ultimately enhancing clinical outcomes [87,88].

4.5. Implications for Clinical Education and Future Research

The findings of this study highlight a clear need for strengthened professional education and ongoing training in the science of restorative materials. Specific emphasis should be placed on deepening clinicians’ understanding of biocompatibility, long-term clinical performance, and the environmental implications of resin-based composites. Expanding educational efforts in these areas is essential for bridging current knowledge gaps and enhancing more informed, evidence-based material selection. A better understanding of the factors influencing material choice can also support clearer communication with patients about the expected performance and longevity of resin-based restorations, potentially improving patient satisfaction and adherence to follow-up care [89]. Additionally, recognizing the dynamic nature of material preferences supports the importance of ongoing clinical monitoring to assess long-term outcomes and guide retreatment planning when necessary [90]. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of in vitro testing, especially for properties like translucency and color matching, which are sensitive to environmental factors such as lighting and background conditions; this highlights the need for complementary in vivo studies to validate and extend laboratory findings [91]. So, integrating sustainability criteria into established regulatory frameworks, such as ISO and ADA standards [11,12], offers a structured path to aligning clinical excellence with environmental responsibility [42,48]. Future research should assess the long-term clinical outcomes of eco-conscious resin systems and explore institutional strategies to embed green procurement through policy, education, and industry collaboration [80]. Multi-center, cross-national studies could further validate these findings and uncover regional differences in material preferences, training, and regulations [92]. Finally, to embed ISO literacy into daily practice, curricula, and policies should incorporate targeted education, decision-making tools, and certification programs, ensuring consistent application of standards that enhance both patient safety and procurement quality.

Limitations of the Study

While this study provides meaningful insights into the factors influencing resin-based material selection among dental professionals, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis did not adjust for potential confounding variables, such as age and experience, which may interact and influence the observed associations. Second, the observed correlations were weak and should be interpreted with caution. Finally, no correction for multiple comparisons was applied, which may increase the risk of type I error. These limitations should be addressed in future studies with a larger sample. Further, the sample was simultaneously limited to dentists affiliated with the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Institutional affiliation can influence clinical protocols, procurement practices, and educational exposure, introducing contextual bias not necessarily representative of national or international settings [90,92]. Nonetheless, the inclusion of clinicians with diverse backgrounds and access to a wide range of materials supports the relevance of the findings to similar academic and clinical environments. These characteristics provide important context for interpreting the results and understanding both the strengths and limitations of the study population. We should further mention that our study was designed as a pilot investigation, the primary purpose of which is to explore patterns, test the feasibility of research instruments, and identify potential variables and relationships for further study. As it is reported, pilot studies serve as essential precursors to larger-scale investigations, providing preliminary data that can inform the refinement of research questions, methodological design, and sampling strategies [93,94]. In this context, the current findings should be viewed as exploratory rather than definitive, offering a foundational understanding of professional decision-making regarding resin materials, which can be tested and expanded upon in future multi-center or longitudinal research, as mentioned also elsewhere [95]. To add more to this, the cross-sectional design offers only a snapshot of clinicians’ preferences and knowledge at one point in time, without capturing how these evolve with experience or education. A longitudinal or pre–post intervention study could better assess changes over time. Although open-ended questions allowed participants to elaborate, their responses were only briefly summarized; a more structured qualitative analysis, such as thematic grouping, could add valuable depth in future research. Expanding the study to a larger, more demographically and geographically diverse sample would improve representativeness and strengthen cross-contextual comparisons [96]. Finally, responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias, and reliance on self-reported knowledge introduces potential measurement bias, as self-assessments may not reflect actual clinical competence [97,98]. Despite these limitations, this study offers several strengths. It addresses a notable gap in the literature by empirically examining how professional characteristics influence restorative material selection, with a focus on both clinical and sustainability-related factors. Furthermore, it contributes original data from an underrepresented professional population and provides a validated survey tool that can be adapted for broader research contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study provides evidence that dentists’ selection of resin-based restorative materials is significantly influenced by clinical requirements, practitioner characteristics, and external factors, leading us to reject the null hypothesis. Clinical experience and procurement responsibility emerged as key determinants: less experienced practitioners prioritized anatomical and esthetic features, while more experienced clinicians demonstrated greater flexibility and familiarity with material options. The variation in selection criteria between anterior and posterior restorations reinforces the need for context-specific decision-making, where esthetics dominate anterior choices and mechanical properties are prioritized posteriorly. External factors such as cost, availability, and brand reputation also influenced material selection, while sustainability and environmental awareness, though emerging considerations, played a lesser role compared to clinical performance. Gaps in knowledge regarding material properties and regulatory standards highlight the need for targeted educational initiatives to support evidence-based choices. Future research should explore ways to integrate environmentally friendly practices into dental material manufacturing without compromising quality or compliance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K.Z. and M.A.; methodology, M.A.; software, A.K.Z. and M.A.; validation, M.A.; formal analysis, A.K.Z. and M.A.; investigation, A.K.Z. and S.S.; resources, A.K.Z., M.A. and S.S.; data curation, M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.Z., M.A. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, A.K.Z. and M.A.; visualization, A.K.Z. and M.A.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, A.K.Z., M.A. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Department of Den-tistry (16.05.2024/44982).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Study Questionnaire

Part A. Demographic Characteristics
Q1. What is your gender? (single choice)
-
Q1.1. Male
-
Q1.2. Female
-
Q1.3. Other
Q2. What is your age? (single choice)
-
Q2.1. 24–35
-
Q2.2. 36–45
-
Q2.3. 46–55
-
Q2.4. 56–65
-
Q2.5. 66–75
Q3. What is your educational background? (multiple choice)
-
Q3.1. Graduate of a dental school in Greece
-
Q3.2. Graduate of a dental school abroad
-
Q3.3. Master’s degree in dentistry
-
Q3.4. Master’s degree in a related field
-
Q3.5. Doctorate (PhD) in dentistry
-
Q3.6. Doctorate (PhD) in a related field
-
Q3.7. Additional degree in another discipline outside of dentistry
Q4. What type of professional setting best describes your work? (multiple choice)
-
Q4.1. Private dental office (own practice)
-
Q4.2. Work at a colleague’s dental office
-
Q4.3. Work in a group practice with more than 3 dentists
-
Q4.4. Work in a university clinic
-
Q4.5. Work in a public institution
-
Q4.6. Other
Q5. How many years of clinical experience do you have as a dentist? (single choice)
-
Q5.1. 0–5
-
Q5.2. 6–10
-
Q5.3. 11–15
-
Q5.4. 16–20
-
Q5.5. 21–25
-
Q5.6. 26–30
-
Q5.7. More than 31
Part B. General Questions Regarding Restorative Materials
Q6. How often do you purchase resin-based restorative materials? (single choice)
-
Q6.1. Once per year
-
Q6.2. Twice per year
-
Q6.3. More than twice per year
-
Q6.4. I stock up when there are special offers
-
Q6.5. Whenever the previous stock runs out
-
Q6.6. I do not purchase materials myself; someone else handles procurement
-
Q6.7. I do not purchase resin-based materials because I specialize in an area that does not use them
Q7. On average, how many resin composite restorations do you or your team perform per week? (single choice)
-
Q7.1. Fewer than 20
-
Q7.2. 20–50
-
Q7.3. More than 50
-
Q7.4. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q7.5. Other: __________
Q8. How well do you know the following aspects of the main resin-based material you use in your practice? (Rate on a scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = Slightly, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Well, 5 = Perfectly)
-
Q8.1. Its composition
-
Q8.2. Its biocompatibility
-
Q8.3. Its potential adverse effects
-
Q8.4. Its lifespan
-
Q8.5. Its application method
-
Q8.6. Its type (hybrid, nanofilled, etc.)
Q9. How has your approach to resin-based restorative materials changed after the COVID-19 pandemic? (multiple choice)
-
Q9.1. Increased orders of resin-based materials
-
Q9.2. Decreased orders of resin-based materials
-
Q9.3. Greater interest in materials with easy and fast workflows
-
Q9.4. Less interest in materials with easy and fast workflows
-
Q9.5. More interest in trying new materials
-
Q9.6. Less interest in trying new materials
-
Q9.7. No significant change in preferences
-
Q9.8. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q9.9. Other: __________
Q10. What criteria do you consider when selecting resin-based materials for anterior restorations? (multiple choice)
-
Q10.1. Desired anatomical features
-
Q10.2. Available interdental space
-
Q10.3. Shade of adjacent teeth
-
Q10.4. Translucency and opacity of adjacent teeth
-
Q10.5. No specific criteria; I use whatever is in stock
-
Q10.6. Use only specialized anterior resins
-
Q10.7. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q10.8. Other: __________
Q11. What criteria do you consider when selecting resin-based materials for posterior restorations? (multiple choice)
-
Q11.1. Desired anatomical features
-
Q11.2. Available interdental space
-
Q11.3. Shade of adjacent teeth
-
Q11.4. No specific criteria; I use whatever is in stock
-
Q11.5. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q11.6. Other: __________
Q12. What is your material of choice for extensive direct posterior aesthetic restorations? (multiple choice)
-
Q12.1. Amalgam
-
Q12.2. High-viscosity (packable) composite resin
-
Q12.3. Flowable composite resin
-
Q12.4. Bulk-fill resin composite
-
Q12.5. Glass ionomer cement
-
Q12.6. Other: __________
Part C. Questions Related to ISO Standards of Resin-Based Restorative Materials
Q13. How important are the following factors when purchasing a resin-based restorative material? (Rate: 1 = Not important, 5 = Most important)
-
Q13.1. Price
-
Q13.2. Quality
-
Q13.3. Manufacturer’s reputation
-
Q13.4. Material properties (e.g., biocompatibility, strength)
-
Q13.5. Ease of handling
-
Q13.6. Availability on the market
-
Q13.7. Compliance with standards
-
Q13.8. Patient safety
-
Q13.9. Staff safety
-
Q13.10. Environmental reasons
Q14. Are you familiar with the standards for resin-based dental restorative materials? (single choice)
-
Q14.1. Yes
-
Q14.2. No
-
Q14.3. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
Q15. How important is it to you that the material complies with standards? (single choice)
-
Q15.1. Very important
-
Q15.2. Quite important
-
Q15.3. Moderately important
-
Q15.4. Indifferent
-
Q15.5. Not important
Q16. Which property do you prioritize most when selecting resin-based restorative materials? (single choice)
-
Q16.1. Biocompatibility
-
Q16.2. Depth of cure
-
Q16.3. Flexural strength
-
Q16.4. Water sorption
-
Q16.5. Solubility
-
Q16.6. Radiopacity
-
Q16.7. None
-
Q16.8. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
Q17. Would you choose a resin-based material with higher water sorption because it is: (multiple choice)
-
Q17.1. Lower cost
-
Q17.2. From a trusted brand
-
Q17.3. Easier to handle
-
Q17.4. With longer shelf life
-
Q17.5. Most important for me is that it meets ISO standards
-
Q17.6. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q17.7. Other: __________
Q18. Would you choose a resin-based material with lower flexural strength (i.e., less resistant to deformation under load) if it: (multiple choice)
-
Q18.1. Has greater color stability
-
Q18.2. Requires less curing time and thus less working time
-
Q18.3. Has greater radiopacity than dentin and is more visible on radiographs
-
Q18.4. I do not consider flexural strength important
-
Q18.5. I would not choose a material lacking this property for posterior teeth
-
Q18.6. I would not choose a material with inferior physical and mechanical properties
-
Q18.7. I don’t know/prefer not to answer
-
Q18.8. Other: __________
Q19. For direct aesthetic resin-based restorations, please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:
(Rate on a scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = Slightly, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Mostly, 5 = Always)
-
Q19.1. I like to try new materials frequently to see what works best.
-
Q19.2. I look for published studies on effectiveness and longevity before trying a new material.
-
Q19.3. I prefer materials with a long record of clinical success before adopting them.
-
Q19.4. I rarely try new aesthetic materials.
-
Q19.5. I am interested in trying new generations of materials I already trust.
-
Q19.6. I almost never change the aesthetic resin materials I use unless they become unavailable.
-
Q19.7. I trust the materials I learned to use during dental school.
-
Q19.8. I generally trust materials that offer longer working time.
-
Q19.9. I trust materials that colleagues often speak positively about.
-
Q19.10. I trust materials promoted through printed advertising.
-
Q19.11. I trust materials promoted through digital media.
-
Q19.12. I have not noticed any conscious behavior when choosing direct aesthetic materials.
Q20. Before purchasing a resin-based restorative material, I look for information about:
(Rate on a scale: 1 = Not important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important, 5 = Most important)
-
Q20.1. Compliance with ISO standards
-
Q20.2. Opinion of a trusted colleague about the product
-
Q20.3. Any discount offer from my supplier
-
Q20.4. Shelf life of the material
-
Q20.5. The carbon footprint of the product
-
Q20.6. Longevity of clinical restorations with the material
Q21. Would you choose a resin-based restorative material solely based on:
(Rate on a scale: 1 = Not important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important, 5 = Most important)
-
Q21.1. Appearance of the packaging
-
Q21.2. Environmental footprint of the packaging
-
Q21.3. Extensive promotional activities
-
Q21.4. Ease of procurement
-
Q21.5. Volume of packaging waste
-
Q21.6. Compliance with ISO standards
Part D. Open-Ended Questions
Q24. How do you evaluate the success or failure of direct resin-based aesthetic restorations in your practice?
Q25. Have you ever purchased a resin-based restorative material based solely on advertising or promotional offers? If so, what attracted you?
Q26. How do you stay informed about developments or changes in resin-based materials and their compliance with standards?
Q27. Based on your experience, what are the most common challenges or deficiencies you have encountered with direct resin-based aesthetic materials?
Q28. What would your ideal resin-based restorative material be like?

References

  1. Yadav, R.; Lee, H.H. Ranking and selection of dental restorative composite materials using FAHP-FTOPSIS technique: An application of multi criteria decision making technique. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2022, 132, 105298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Demarco, F.F.; Cenci, M.S.; Montagner, A.F.; de Lima, V.P.; Correa, M.B.; Moraes, R.R.; Opdam, N.J. Longevity of composite restorations is definitely not only about materials. Dent. Mater. Off. Publ. Acad. Dent. Mater. 2023, 39, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shaw, K.; Martins, R.; Hadis, M.A.; Burke, T.; Palin, W. ‘Own-Label’ Versus Branded Commercial Dental Resin Composite Materials: Mechanical And Physical Property Comparisons. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2016, 24, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Pratap, B.; Gupta, R.K.; Bhardwaj, B.; Nag, M. Resin based restorative dental materials: Characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2019, 55, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. 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, 33, e101–e114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Huang, W.; Ren, L.; Cheng, Y.; Xu, M.; Luo, W.; Zhan, D.; Sano, H.; Fu, J. Evaluation of the Color Stability, Water Sorption, and Solubility of Current Resin Composites. Materials 2022, 15, 6710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aminoroaya, A.; Neisiany, R.E.; Khorasani, S.N.; Panahi, P.; Das, O.; Madry, H.; Cucchiarini, M.; Ramakrishna, S. A review of dental composites: Challenges, chemistry aspects, filler influences, and future insights. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 216, 108852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schmalz, G.; Watts, D.C.; Darvell, B.W. Dental materials science: Research, testing and standards. Dent. Mater. Off. Publ. Acad. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 379–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schmalz, G.; Schwendicke, F.; Hickel, R.; Platt, J. Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement. Inter. Dent. J. 2023, 74, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soni, N.; Bairwa, S.; Sumita, S.; Goyal, N.; Choudhary, S.; Gupta, M.; Khurana, M. Mechanical Properties of Dental Resin Composites: A Review. Inter. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2024, 5, 7675–7683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scopes-ISO/TC 106; Dentistry Subcommittees 1 and 2. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1962. Available online: https://www.iso.org/committee/51218.html (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  12. ADA Division of Science ACoSA. Resin-based composites. J. Am. Dent. 2003, 134, 510–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. ISO 4049:2019; Dentistry-Polymer-Based Restorative Materials. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  14. Cho, K.; Rajan, G.; Farrar, P.; Prusty, G. Dental resin composites: A review on materials to product realizations. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 230, 109495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ferracane, J.L.; Hilton, T.J.; Stansbury, J.W.; Watts, D.C.; Silikas, N.; Ilie, N.; Heintze, S.; Cadenaro, M.; Hickel, R. Academy of Dental Materials guidance-Resin composites: Part II-Technique sensitivity (handling, polymerization, dimensional changes). Dent. Mater. Off. Publ. Acad. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 1171–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ilie, N.; Hilton, T.J.; Heintze, S.D.; Hickel, R.; Watts, D.C.; Silikas, N.; Stansbury, J.W.; Cadenaro, M.; Ferracane, J.L. Academy of Dental Materials guidance-Resin composites: Part I-Mechanical properties. Dent. Mater. Off. Publ. Acad. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 880–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yap, A.U.; Eweis, A.H.; Yahya, N.A. Dynamic and Static Flexural Appraisal of Resin-based Composites: Comparison of the ISO and Mini-flexural Tests. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, E223–E231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Shaabin, N.M.S.; Khayyat, R.H.; Al-Ahmadi, H.S.; Halal, R.N.; Tawati, A.A.; Shaabin, M.M.S.; Addas, N.A.; Linjawi, M.S.; Balubaid, W.S.; Garanbish, M.F.; et al. Material Selection for Posterior Restorations: An Observational Study Evaluating Dentists’ Preferences in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2022, 30, 649–659. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghoneim, A.; Yu, B.; Lawrence, H.; Glogauer, M.; Shankardass, K.; Quiñonez, C. What influences the clinical decision-making of dentists? A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Arandi, N.Z. Current trends in placing posterior composite restorations: Perspectives from Palestinian general dentists: A questionnair study. J. Inter. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2024, 14, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nascimento, G.G.; Correa, M.B.; Opdam, N.; Demarco, F.F. Do clinical experience time and postgraduate training influence the choice of materials for posterior restorations? Results of a survey with Brazilian general dentists. Braz. Dent. J. 2013, 24, 642–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khaleefa, S.; Yeslam, H.; Hasanain, F. Knowledge and Attitude of Recent Dental Graduates towards Smart/Bioactive Dental Composites. J. Pharm. Res. Inter. 2021, 33, 34–44. [Google Scholar]
  23. ALmalki, W.D.; Ingle, N.; Assery, M.; Alsanea, J. Dentists’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Evidence-Based Dentistry Practice in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2019, 11 (Suppl. S3), S507–S514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ogiemwonyi, O.; Alam, M.; Alshareef, R.; Alsolamy, M.; Azizan, N.; Mat, N. Environmental factors affecting green purchase behaviors of the consumers: Mediating role of environmental attitude. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2023, 10, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ririn, Y.; Rahmat, S.T.Y.; Rina, A. How packaging, product quality and promotion affect the purchase intention? Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 2019, 92, 46–55. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rundh, B. Linking packaging to marketing: How packaging is influencing the marketing strategy. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 1547–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Duane, B.; Ramasubbu, D.; Harford, S.; Steinbach, I.; Stancliffe, R.; Croasdale, K.; Pasdeki-Clewer, E. Environmental sustainability and procurement: Purchasing products for the dental setting. Br. Dent. J. 2019, 226, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moshkbid, E.; Cree, D.E.; Bradford, L.; Zhang, W. Biodegradable Alternatives to Plastic in Medical Equipment: Current State, Challenges, and the Future. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 8, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mulimani, P. Green dentistry: The art and science of sustainable practice. Br. Dent. J. 2017, 222, 954–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maier, C.; Thatcher, J.; Grover, V.; Dwivedi, Y. Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. Inter. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 70, 102625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahmed, A.; Pereira, L.; Jane, K. Mixed Methods Research: Combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384402328_Mixed_Methods_Research_Combining_both_qualitative_and_quantitative_approaches (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  32. Chai, H.H.; Gao, S.S.; Chen, K.J.; Duangthip, D.; Lo, E.C.M.; Chu, C.H. A Concise Review on Qualitative Research in Dentistry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ranganathan, P.; Caduff, C. Designing and validating a research questionnaire—Part 1. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2023, 14, 152–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khanal, B.; Chhetri, D. A Pilot Study Approach to Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Relevancy and Efficacy Survey Scale. Janabhawana Res. J. 2024, 3, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brewster, J.; Roberts, H.W. 12-Month flexural mechanical properties of conventional and self-adhesive flowable resin composite materials. Dent. Mater. J. 2023, 42, 598–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Calabrese, L.; Fabiano, F.; Bonaccorsi, L.M.; Fabiano, V.; Borsellino, C. Evaluation of the Clinical Impact of ISO 4049 in Comparison with Miniflexural Test on Mechanical Performances of Resin Based Composite. Int. J. Biomater. 2015, 2015, 149798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Erickson, R.L.; Barkmeier, W.W. Comparisons of ISO depth of cure for a resin composite in stainless-steel and natural-tooth molds. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2019, 127, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fan, P.L.; Schumacher, R.M.; Azzolin, K.; Geary, R.; Eichmiller, F.C. Curing-light intensity and depth of cure of resin-based composites tested according to international standards. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2002, 33, 429–434, quiz 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Flury, S.; Hayoz, S.; Peutzfeldt, A.; Hüsler, J.; Lussi, A. Depth of cure of resin composites: Is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent. Mater. Off. Publ. Acad. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Heintze, S.; Zimmerli, B. Relevance of in-vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. A review in 3 parts. Part 2: Non-standardized tests of composite materials. Schweiz. Monatsschrift Zahnmed. 2011, 121, 916–930. [Google Scholar]
  41. Heintze, S.D.; Zimmerli, B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: Approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications. Schweiz. Monatsschrift Zahnmed. 2011, 121, 804–816. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ilie, N. ISO 4049 versus NIST 4877: Influence of stress configuration on the outcome of a three-point bending test in resin-based dental materials and interrelation between standards. J. Dent. 2021, 110, 103682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moore, B.K.; Platt, J.A.; Borges, G.; Chu, T.M.; Katsilieri, I. Depth of cure of dental resin composites: ISO 4049 depth and microhardness of types of materials and shades. Oper. Dent. 2008, 33, 408–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, N.; Xie, C. Polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage stress, and mechanical evaluation of novel prototype dental composite resin. Dent. Mater. J. 2020, 39, 1064–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Burke, F.J. The evidence base for ‘own label’ resin-based dental restoratives. Dent. Update 2013, 40, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Klaiman, K.; Ortega, D.; Garnache, C. Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 115, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mallinson, D.J.; Hatemi, P.K. The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Megremis, S.J. Assuring the Safety of Dental Materials: The Usefulness and Application of Standards. Dent. Clin. North Am. 2022, 66, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mittal, R.; Maheshwari, R.; Tripathi, S.; Pandey, S. Eco-friendly dentistry: Preventing pollution to promoting sustainability. Indian J. Dent. Sci. 2020, 12, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prudnikov, Y.; Nazarenko, A. The role of content marketing in the promotion of medical goods and services. Health Econ. Manag. Rev. 2021, 2, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zaware, P.D.N. Exploration of market potential towards dental material brands: An assessment with preferences of dentists in India. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020, 24, 4015–4026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bujang, M.A.; Omar, E.; Foo, D.; Hon, Y.K. Sample size determination for conducting a pilot study to assess reliability of a questionnaire. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2024, 49, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hussey, I.; Alsalti, T.; Bosco, F.; Elson, M.; Arslan, R. An Aberrant Abundance of Cronbach’s Alpha Values at.70. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2025, 8, 25152459241287123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Agrawal, A.A.; Prakash, N.; Almagbol, M.; Alobaid, M.; Alqarni, A.; Altamni, H. Synoptic review on existing and potential sources for bias in dental research methodology with methods on their prevention and remedies. World J. Methodol. 2023, 13, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vaidyanathan, A.K. Controlling bias in research. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2022, 22, 311–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bispo Júnior, J.P. Social desirability bias in qualitative health research. Rev. Saude Publica 2022, 56, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Latkin, C.A.; Edwards, C.; Davey-Rothwell, M.A.; Tobin, K.E. The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addict. Behav. 2017, 73, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guo, M.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Li, R.; Zhao, Y.; Li, C.; Zhu, M.; Cui, Y.; Jiang, X.; Sheng, S.; et al. Normal Workflow and Key Strategies for Data Cleaning Toward Real-World Data: Viewpoint. Interact. J. Med. Res. 2023, 12, e44310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ranganathan, P.; Hunsberger, S. Handling missing data in research. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2024, 15, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ahmed, I.; Ishtiaq, S. Reliability and validity: Importance in Medical Research. JPMA J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2021, 71, 2401–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sengupta, A.; Naka, O.; Mehta, S.B.; Banerji, S. The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: A systematic review. Evid. Based Dent. 2023, 24, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chesterman, J.; Jowett, A.; Gallacher, A.; Nixon, P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: A review. BDJ 2017, 222, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Matos, J.D.; Nakano, L.J.; Lopes, G.R.; Bottino, M.A.; Vasconcelos, J.E.; Jesus, R.H.; Maciel, L.C. Characterization of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites in Terms of Physical, Chemical, Mechanical and Optical Properties and Clinical Behavior. Int. J. Odontostomatol. 2021, 15, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sikka, N.; Brizuela, M. Glass Ionomer Cement. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing LLC: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ulku, S.G.; Unlu, N. Factors influencing the longevity of posterior composite restorations: A dental university clinic study. Heliyon 2024, 10, e27735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lorenz, J.; Wilhelm, C.; Urich, J.; Weigl, P.; Sader, R. Different Esthetic Assessment of Anterior Restorations by Patient and Expert: A Prospective Clinical Study. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2025, 37, 1113–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. A Al-Asmar, A.; Al-Hiyasat, A.S.; Abu-Awwad, M.; Mousa, H.N.; A Salim, N.; Almadani, W.; Rihan, F.; A Sawair, F.; Pitts, N.B.; Dioguardi, M. Reframing Perceptions in Restorative Dentistry: Evidence-Based Dentistry and Clinical Decision-Making. Int. J. Dent. 2021, 2021, 4871385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Girotto, L.P.S.; Dotto, L.; Pereira, G.K.R.; Bacchi, A.; Sarkis-Onofre, R. Restorative preferences and choices of dentists and students for restoring endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of survey studies. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 126, 489.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pizzolotto, L.; Moraes, R.R. Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Caussin, E.; Izart, M.; Ceinos, R.; Attal, J.-P.; Beres, F.; François, P. Advanced Material Strategy for Restoring Damaged Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Comprehensive Review. Materials 2024, 17, 3736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Murchie, B.; Jiwan, N.; Edwards, D. What are the success rates of anterior restorations used in localised wear cases? Evid. Based Dent. 2025, 26, 54–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Balestra, D.; Lowther, M.; Goracci, C.; Mandurino, M.; Cortili, S.; Paolone, G.; Louca, C.; Vichi, A. 3D Printed Materials for Permanent Restorations in Indirect Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry: A Critical Review of the Literature. Materials 2024, 17, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mai, H.N.; Lee, K.B.; Lee, D.H. Fit of interim crowns fabricated using photopolymer-jetting 3D printing. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shibata, S.; Hoshika, S.; Inokoshi, M.; Minakuchi, S. Effect of post-curing conditions on the mechanical properties of three-dimensional printed provisional restorative material. Dent Mater J. 2021, 40, 715–722. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ille, C.-E.; Jivănescu, A.; Pop, D.; Stoica, E.T.; Flueras, R.; Talpoş-Niculescu, I.-C.; Cosoroabă, R.M.; Popovici, R.-A.; Olariu, I. Exploring the Properties and Indications of Chairside CAD/CAM Materials in Restorative Dentistry. J. Funct. Biomater. 2025, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Barakat, B.; Milhem, M.; Naji, G.M.A.; Alzoraiki, M.; Muda, H.B.; Ateeq, A.; Abro, Z. Assessing the Impact of Green Training on Sustainable Business Advantage: Exploring the Mediating Role of Green Supply Chain Practices. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kaurani, P.; Batra, K.; Hooja, H.R.; Chander, N.G.; Bhowmick, A.; Arora, S.; Baba, S.M.; Khateeb, S.U.; Abdulla, A.M.; Grover, V.; et al. Assessing the Compliance of Dental Clinicians towards Regulatory Infection Control Guidelines Using a Newly Developed Survey Tool: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study in India. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Boulding, H.; Hinrichs-Krapels, S. Factors influencing procurement behaviour and decision-making: An exploratory qualitative study in a UK healthcare provider. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Antoniadou, M.; Chrysochoou, G.; Tzanetopoulos, R.; Riza, E. Green Dental Environmentalism among Students and Dentists in Greece. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Beske-Janssen, P.; Johnsen, T.; Constant, F.; Wieland, A. New competences enhancing Procurement’s contribution to innovation and sustainability. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2023, 29, 100847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Barnes, E.; Bullock, A.D.; Bailey, S.E.; Cowpe, J.G.; Karaharju-Suvanto, T. A review of continuing professional development for dentists in Europe*. Eur. J. Dent. Edu. 2013, 17 (Suppl. S1), 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Țâncu, A.M.C.; Imre, M.; Iosif, L.; Pițuru, S.M.; Pantea, M.; Sfeatcu, R.; Ilinca, R.; Bodnar, D.C.; Didilescu, A.C. Is Sustainability Part of the Drill? Examining Knowledge and Awareness Among Dental Students in Bucharest, Romania. Dent. J. 2025, 13, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Antoniadou, M.; Intzes, A.; Kladouchas, C.; Christou, I.; Chatzigeorgiou, S.; Plexida, M.; Stefanidakis, V.; Tzoutzas, I. Factors Affecting Water Quality and Sustainability in Dental Practices in Greece. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kichenin, J.; Vallaeys, K.; Arbab Chirani, R.; Duncan, H.F.; Chevalier, V. How does gender influence student learning, stress and career choice in endodontics? Int. Endod. J. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wolbring, G.; Nguyen, A. Equity/Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, and Other EDI Phrases and EDI Policy Frameworks: A Scoping Review. Trends High. Educ. 2023, 2, 168–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Al-Sbei, R.; Ataya, J.; Jamous, I.; Dashash, M. The Impact of a Web-Based Restorative Dentistry Course on the Learning Outcomes of Dental Graduates: Pre-Experimental Study. JMIR Form. Res. 2024, 8, e51141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Wang, Y.M.; Chang, Y.C. Initiating gender mainstreaming in dentistry. J. Dent. Sci. 2022, 17, 1411–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Spaveras, A.; Antoniadou, M. Awareness of Students and Dentists on Sustainability Issues, Safety of Use and Disposal of Dental Amalgam. Dent. J. 2023, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Dempsey, K.; Ferguson, C.; Walczak, A.; Middleton, S.; Levi, C.; Morton, R.L.; Australian Health Research Alliance (AHRA) Health System Improvement and Sustainability Working Group Members. Which strategies support the effective use of clinical practice guidelines and clinical quality registry data to inform health service delivery? A systematic review. Syst. Rev. 2022, 9, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mohammadipour, H.S.; Yazdi, S.S.; Mashhad, M.J.M.; Babazadeh, S.; Shahri, A. Color matching and translucency of single-shade resin composites: Effects of restoration thickness, background shade, and aging. BMC Oral Health 2025, 25, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gheorghe, A.; Roberts, T.E.; Ives, J.C.; Fletcher, B.R.; Calvert, M. Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: A mixed methods study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Torgerson, D.J.; Torgerson, C.J. Pilot Randomised Controlled Trials. In Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences: An Introduction; Torgerson, D.J., Torgerson, C.J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 119–126. [Google Scholar]
  94. Patino, C.M.; Ferreira, J.C. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: Definitions and why they matter. J. Bras. Pneumol. Publ. Soc. Bras. Pneumol. Tisilogia 2018, 44, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Leon, A.C.; Davis, L.L.; Kraemer, H.C. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2011, 45, 626–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Thabane, L.; Ma, J.; Chu, R.; Cheng, J.; Ismaila, A.; Rios, L.P.; Robson, R.; Thabane, M.; Giangregorio, L.; Goldsmith, C.H. A tutorial on pilot studies: The what, why and how. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2010, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hallingberg, B.; Turley, R.; Segrott, J.; Wight, D.; Craig, P.; Moore, L.; Murphy, S.; Robling, M.; Simpson, S.A.; Moore, G. Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: A systematic review of guidance. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018, 4, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bornstein, M.; Al-Nawas, B.; Kuchler, U.; Tahmaseb, A. Consensus Statements and Recommended Clinical Procedures Regarding Contemporary Surgical and Radiographic Techniques in Implant Dentistry. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Mean scores and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for different aspects of knowledge regarding resin materials.
Figure 1. Mean scores and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for different aspects of knowledge regarding resin materials.
Applsci 15 07987 g001
Figure 2. Selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior restorations.
Figure 2. Selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior restorations.
Applsci 15 07987 g002
Figure 3. Importance of environmental factors when purchasing resin restorative materials for conservative restorations, segmented by gender.
Figure 3. Importance of environmental factors when purchasing resin restorative materials for conservative restorations, segmented by gender.
Applsci 15 07987 g003
Table 1. Correlations between professional characteristics and knowledge of resin restorative materials.
Table 1. Correlations between professional characteristics and knowledge of resin restorative materials.
Gender (Female vs. Male Dentists)Age (over 45 Years vs. Younger)Dental School (Foreign vs. Domestic)Postgraduate Studies in DentistryClinical Experience (over 5 Years vs. up to 5 Years)Employment
(Private Clinic vs. Other)
Purchasing Resin Restorations over 2 Times/YearNot Responsible for Supply of Resin RestorationsPerforming over 20 Composite Resin Restorations per Week
Knowledge about resin materials−0.1520.236 *0.1180.1750.214 *0.0550.062−0.0520.195
1. Composition−0.0850.1630.1180.1640.230 *−0.0440.061−0.1530.206
2. Biocompatibility−0.248 *0.0450.1580.138−0.014−0.0150.1290.0980.081
3. Side effects−0.0840.135−0.0520.0720.033−0.0410.0720.1790.041
4. Shelf life−0.0240.2080.1160.0390.223 *0.1700.110−0.1450.149
5. Method of application−0.0120.214 *0.1070.1860.1590.028−0.1640.0390.100
6. Type of material−0.1650.1370.0720.1610.1770.097−0.099−0.1150.141
Note: * p < 0.05.
Table 2. Familiarity with specifications and features.
Table 2. Familiarity with specifications and features.
N%
Familiarity with specifications for dental resin restorative materialsYes5571.4%
No2228.6%
Importance of resin restorative material compliance with specificationsVery high2832.2%
High 4754.0%
Moderate 1213.8%
Features priority when choosing resin restorative materialsBiocompatibility2125.9%
Photopolymerization depth1316.0%
Bending strength2834.6%
Water absorbency, solubility, etc.1923.5%
Green practice but falls slightly short of some of the ISO specificationsCertainly yes44.9%
It depends on the specifications4554.9%
No, for me ISO standards are the most important selection criterion3340.2%
Table 3. Selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior tooth restorations.
Table 3. Selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior tooth restorations.
Total SampleClinical Experience (in Years)
Up to 5 YearsOver 5 Years
N%N%
What are the selection criteria for the resin materials you choose for anterior tooth restorations?
It depends on the anatomical features I want to achieve4754.0%3170.5%1637.2%
It depends on the interdental space that exists1416.1%1022.7%49.3%
It depends on the color of the neighboring teeth4450.6%2556.8%1944.2%
It depends on the transparency and opacity of the neighboring teeth4956.3%2965.9%2046.5%
I do not have a specific criterion, I use what I have in stock66.9%49.1%24.7%
I only use special anterior resins3236.8%1022.7%2251.2%
What are the selection criteria for the resin materials you choose for posterior tooth restorations?
It depends on the anatomical features I want to achieve4855.2%2965.9%1944.2%
It depends on the interdental space that exists2427.6%1534.1%920.9%
It depends on the color of the neighboring teeth2528.7%1431.8%1125.6%
I do not have a specific criterion, I use what I have in stock2427.6%1022.7%1432.6%
Table 4. Correlations between selection criteria for resin materials and professional characteristics.
Table 4. Correlations between selection criteria for resin materials and professional characteristics.
Selection Criteria for the Resin MaterialsGender
(Female vs. Male)
Age
(over 45 Years)
Dental School (Foreign vs. Domestic)Postgraduate Studies in DentistryClinical Experience
(>5 Years)
Employment (Private Clinic vs. Other)Purchasing Resin Restorations over 2 Times/YearNot Responsible for Supply of Resin RestorationsPerforming over 20 Restorations/Week
What are the selection criteria for the resin materials you choose for anterior tooth restorations?
It depends on the anatomical features I want to achieve−0.043−0.2040.055−0.134−0.334 **−0.0900.0210.120−0.315 **
It depends on the interdental space that exists−0.108−0.054−0.117−0.020−0.1830.0170.0440.112−0.071
It depends on the color of the neighboring teeth0.080−0.1050.025−0.127−0.1260.0330.1660.017−0.160
It depends on the transparency and opacity of the neighboring teeth0.185−0.239 *−0.028−0.076−0.196−0.1880.0900.040−0.164
I do not have a specific criterion, I use what I have in stock−0.028−0.007−0.1240.068−0.0880.154−0.0850.0140.126
I only use special anterior resins0.0170.1990.0300.337 **0.295 **−0.1270.004−0.1510.113
What are the selection criteria for the resin materials you choose for posterior tooth restorations?
It depends on the anatomical features I want to achieve0.071−0.1730.0440.085−0.218 *−0.1620.1050.055−0.133
It depends on the interdental space that exists0.091−0.123−0.077−0.058−0.147−0.0120.142−0.025−0.037
It depends on the color of the neighboring teeth−0.0410.020−0.0210.132−0.0690.1640.178−0.097−0.057
I do not have a specific criterion; I use what I have in stock−0.116−0.015−0.009−0.1640.1100.039−0.1920.086−0.018
I do not know/do not answer0.097−0.078−0.049−0.084−0.1070.097−0.072−0.072−0.083
*, ** Stands for statistical significance.
Table 5. Correlations between professional characteristics and familiarity with specifications and features priority in resin restorative materials.
Table 5. Correlations between professional characteristics and familiarity with specifications and features priority in resin restorative materials.
Gender (Female vs. Male)Age (over 45 Years)Dental School (Foreign vs. Domestic)Post-Grad Studies in DentistryClinical Experience (over 5 Years)Employment (Private Clinic vs. Other)Purchasing Resin Restorations over 2 Times/YearNot Responsible for Supply of Resin RestorationsPerforming over 20 Restorations/Week
Familiarity with specifications−0.0330.0760.132−0.1080.231 *−0.0410.254 *−0.341 **0.163
Specifications importance0.1090.1500.0940.0380.195−0.0250.052−0.0920.095
Features priority when choosing resin restorative materials
Biocompatibility0.232 *0.1360.1770.2130.106−0.106−0.1050.093−0.026
Photopolymerization depth−0.162−0.084−0.022−0.1470.050−0.117−0.084−0.0010.113
Bending strength−0.204−0.1110.011−0.056−0.233 *0.1810.112−0.092−0.078
Water absorbency, Solubility, etc.0.1300.056−0.176−0.0300.1080.0090.0560.0090.019
Green practice but falls slightly short of some of the ISO specifications
Certainly yes0.0920.1810.0660.0570.113−0.0280.211−0.0210.182
It depends on the specifications0.114−0.1760.029−0.001−0.025−0.061−0.1720.0990.020
No, for me ISO standards are the most important selection criterion−0.1550.099−0.058−0.024−0.0250.0750.082−0.091−0.102
*, ** Stands for statistical significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kontakou Zoniou, A.; Antoniadou, M.; Saridou, S. Selection of Resin-Based Dental Restorative Materials: A Pilot Study on Professional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Selection Criteria. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7987. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147987

AMA Style

Kontakou Zoniou A, Antoniadou M, Saridou S. Selection of Resin-Based Dental Restorative Materials: A Pilot Study on Professional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Selection Criteria. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(14):7987. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147987

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kontakou Zoniou, Anna, Maria Antoniadou, and Sofia Saridou. 2025. "Selection of Resin-Based Dental Restorative Materials: A Pilot Study on Professional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Selection Criteria" Applied Sciences 15, no. 14: 7987. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147987

APA Style

Kontakou Zoniou, A., Antoniadou, M., & Saridou, S. (2025). Selection of Resin-Based Dental Restorative Materials: A Pilot Study on Professional Characteristics, Knowledge, and Selection Criteria. Applied Sciences, 15(14), 7987. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147987

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop