Comparison of post-treatment complications of conventional composites versus self-adhering composites: a review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.45223Keywords:
Composite resins, dental restoration repair, dental marginal adaptation, review, dental materials, postoperative complicationsAbstract
Self-adhering composites (SACs) are designed to simplify dental procedures by eliminating the need for separate adhesive systems. These materials are indicated for small Class I and Class V cavities, noncarious cervical lesions, and as liners in Class I and II restorations. Despite their advantages, the long-term durability and clinical performance of these composites compared to conventional composites (CCs) is a question. This study aims to compare post-treatment complications, including marginal adaptation, postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, marginal gap, and microleakage, between CCs and SACs. In February 2024, a comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. No filters were applied during the search. Keywords included ‘resin composite restoration’, ‘post-operative sensitivity’, ‘marginal adaptation’, ‘marginal gap’, and ‘microleakage’. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria (clinical trials, English-language, focusing on SACs vs. CCs) and exclusion criteria (nonindexed studies, conference abstracts, editorials, case reports, review articles, or pre-2019 studies). From 361 articles, 148 remained after removing duplicates and title screening. Out of 148 records found in databases, six records were selected for this study. Data showed that SACs and CCs have comparable marginal adaptation, postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, and retention in conservative restorations. SACs showed slightly higher microleakage in some cases. Overall, the clinical performance of SACs were comparable to that of CCs. Thus, SACs can be a practical alternative for simplifying restorative procedures. However, their potential for higher microleakage needs further investigation through long-term clinical studies.
Downloads
References
Moszner N, Hirt T. New polymer-chemical developments in clinical dental polymer materials: Enamel–dentin adhesives and restorative composites. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem. 2012;50(21):4369–402.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.26260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.26260
Milosevic M. Polymerization mechanics of dental composites – advantages and disadvantages. Procedia Eng. 2016;149:313–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.672
Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res. 2008;87(8):710–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700802
da Rosa LS, Pilecco RO, Soares PM, et al. Repair protocols for indirect monolithic restorations: a literature review. PeerJ. 2024;12:e16942.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16942
Hashimoto M, Nagano F, Endo K, Ohno H. A review: Biodegradation of resin–dentin bonds. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2011;47(1):5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2010.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2010.02.001
Frankenberger R, Lopes M, Perdigão J, Ambrose WW, Rosa BT. The use of flowable composites as filled adhesives. Dent Mater. 2002;18(3):227–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00040-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00040-9
Peterson J, Rizk M, Hoch M, Wiegand A. Bonding performance of self-adhesive flowable composites to enamel, dentin and a nano-hybrid composite. Odontology. 2018;106(2):171–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-017-0324-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-017-0324-3
Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007;28(26):3757–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044
Ferracane JL, Giannobile WV. Novel biomaterials and technologies for the dental, oral, and craniofacial structures. J Dent Res. 2014;93(12):1185–6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514556537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514556537
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7–34.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43994
Miranda SB, Leal CFC, Mendonça GL, et al. Clinical performance of self-adhesive vs. conventional flowable resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Med. 2025;14(16):5862.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14165862 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14165862
Van Meerbeek B, Frankenberger R. Editorial: on our way towards self-adhesive restorative materials? J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):295–6.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43044
David C, Cardoso de Cardoso G, Isolan CP, et al. Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable composite resins to dental tissues: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(5):876–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.020
Oz FD, Ergin E, Cakir FY, Gurgan S. Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable resin composite in minimally invasive class I cavities: 5-year results of a double blind randomized, controlled clinical trial. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54(1):10–21.
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc54/1/2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15644/asc54/1/2
AlHumaid J, Al Harbi FA, ElEmbaby AE. Performance of self-adhering flowable composite in Class V restorations: 18 months clinical study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(7):785–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2337
Gayatri C, Rambabu T, Sajjan G, et al. Evaluation of marginal adaptation of a self-adhering flowable composite resin liner: a scanning electron microscopic study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S240–5.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_156_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_156_18
Shaalan OO, Abou-Auf E, El Zoghby AF. Clinical evaluation of self-adhering flowable composite versus conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities: Randomized controlled trial. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21(5):485–90.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.Jcd_210_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_210_18
ulian P. T. Higgins, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew J. Page, and Vivian A. Welch. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons. Chichester, United Kingdom, Cochrane 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
de Oliveira NG, Lima ASLC, da Silveira MT, de Souza Araújo PR, de Melo Monteiro GQ, et al. Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: A randomized split-mouth design-controlled study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03046-0
Cieplik F, Scholz KJ, Anthony JC, et al. One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities-a randomized clinical split-mouth study. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(1):449–61.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y
Elshinawy FM, Abu Auf E, Khallaf YS. Evaluation of clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite vs conventional flowable composite in cervical carious lesions: a randomized clinical trial. Adv Dent J. 2023;5(1):119–26.
https://doi.org/10.21608/adjc.2023.185887.1228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/adjc.2023.185887.1228
Sengar EV, Mulay S, Beri L, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of flowable composite resin using etch and rinse, self-etch adhesive systems, and self-adhesive flowable composite resin in Class V cavities: confocal laser microscopic study. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(14): 4963.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144963
Gisour EF, Jahanimoghadam F, Aftabi R. Comparison of the clinical performance of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-based pit and fissure sealant: a randomized clinical trial in pediatric patients. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):943.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04449-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04449-6
Seoane H, Chasqueira F, Azul AM, Polido M, Delgado AH. Impact of shelf-life simulation on a self-adhesive composite: polymerization kinetics, chemical and color stability. J Adhes Dent. 2023;25:167–76.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b4368821
Chatra A, Nair PMS, D’Costa VF, et al. Shear bond strength of self-adhesive versus conventional flowable composites: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2024;14(5):362–8.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_14_24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_14_24
Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71:5416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.696697
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fatemeh Farshad, Erfan Eskandari, Marzieh Rohaninasab
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
