The evolution of dental materials over the past century –

silver and gold to tooth color and beyond.

Stephen C. Bayne1
Jack L. Ferracane2
Grayson W. Marshall3
Sally J. Marshall3
Richard van Noort4

1School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA

2School of Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97201 USA
3School of Dentistry, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
4Academic Unit of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TA, UK

Corresponding author:

Jack L. Ferracane, PhD

Department of Restorative Dentistry
Oregon Health & Science University
2730 S.W. Moody Avenue
Portland, Oregon, USA 97201
503-494-4327
[email protected]

Key words: dental amalgam, dental composite, dental adhesive, dental cement, dental ceramic,
remineralization

Words: 4511
Abstract
The field of dental materials has an undergone more of a revolution than an evolution over the

past 100 years. The development of new products, especially in the past half century, has

occurred at a staggering pace, and their introduction to the market has been equally impressive.

The movement has mostly come in the area of improved esthetics, marked by the gradual

replacement of dental amalgam with dental composite and all-metal and porcelain-fused-to-metal

indirect restorations with reinforced dental ceramics, and all made possible by the rapid

improvements in dental adhesive materials. This article will cover the time course of dental

materials development over the past century in which the Journal of Dental Research has been

published. While there have been advances in nearly all materials used in the field, this

manuscript will focus on several areas, including dental amalgam, dental composites and light

curing, dental adhesives and dental cements, ceramics and new functional repair materials. A few

short statements on future advances will be included at the end.

Introduction

It would be hard to imagine a field in dentistry that has undergone a more explosive evolution

than that of dental materials. The sheer breadth of new technologies, rate of development, and

adoption are breathtaking. (Figure 1) The development of highly accurate impression materials

enhanced the convenience of making precise and stable impressions for indirect restorations

positively impacted the dental practitioner on a daily basis. Soon these materials may be replaced

in most applications by amazing developments in optical scanning. Transformative changes in

the treatment of edentulous spaces came with the successful use of commercially pure titanium

(cpTi) for dental implants which osseointegrate with natural bone to provide stability. While

there has been tremendous progress throughout the entire field of dental materials over the past

century, this article will highlight pivotal advances in dental amalgams, dental composites and

light curing, dental adhesives and cements, dental ceramics, and new functional repair materials,

because these likely have had the greatest impact on the profession and the oral health of literally

billions of dental patients. To highlight the research effort expended in the development and

study of these five areas, one only needs to survey their appearance over the past few decades in

publications in the Journal of Dental Research. (Figure) With these seminal discoveries in mind,

the article will conclude with brief comments about the future of this exciting field.

The Direct Restorative Revolution - Dental Amalgam

100 years ago dental amalgam was an established restorative material, fundamentally as

modified by GV Black in the late 1800s. The alloy was basically Ag3Sn (γ) with some Cu and

Zn, designed to minimize dimensional change while setting. (Greener, 1979) Irregular alloy

particles were mixed with Hg and the plastic mass condensed into the cavity. The set material
contained two Ag-Hg phases, ~Ag2Hg3 (γ1) and β1 (with less Hg) and ~Sn8Hg (γ2), in addition to

residual alloy particles. (Marshall and Marshall, 1992; Mahler, 1997). This material and

procedure did not change significantly until the 1960s. Particle size varied from coarse to fine to

speed setting for the clinician. Spherical particles were introduced to decrease the amount of

mercury required. Traditional amalgam tended to corrode over time, particularly the Sn8Hg

phase, resulting in Sn- and Cl- containing corrosion products and causing discoloration

clinically. (Holland and Asgar, 1974; Marshall and Marshall, 1980). Corrosion processes and

oxidation of Zn were believed to help “seal” the margins of the restorations to mitigate

secondary caries. Formation of the Sn8Hg phase caused amalgam creep, resulting in observable

deterioration of the margins. (Mahler and Van Eysden, 1969) Despite these problems amalgam

restorations had high compressive strength and excellent clinical longevity.

In the 1960s the first major compositional change occurred with the introduction of more Cu in

the starting alloy by adding additional particles composed of the Ag-Cu eutectic composition.

(Innes and Youdelis, 1963) The additional Cu reacted preferentially with Sn, forming mostly

Cu6Sn5 instead of Sn8Hg. (Vrijhoef and Driessens, 1973; Mahler et al., 1975) Most of the Cu6Sn5

was incorporated with γ1 in a reaction zone surrounding the Ag-Cu particles, residing within a

matrix that was largely γ1. Replacement of γ2 by Cu6Sn5 resulted in better oral corrosion

resistance and improved mechanical properties, especially lower creep. These amalgams became

known as high-Cu, Cu-rich or γ2-free amalgams. The resulting restorations had less marginal

degradation and improved clinical survival. (Letzel et al, 1997; Mahler, 1997) Further variations

were explored, notably with the inclusion of the additional Cu in a single spherical particle of

Ag-Sn-Cu with similar overall composition. (Mahler, 1997) The microstructure of the set
amalgam consisted of residual particles of Ag-Sn-Cu with Cu6Sn5 particles more distinct in the

reaction zone. The two most common commercial products were Dispersalloy (two particles)

and Tytin (single particle). The spherical particle versions required less Hg for mixing (~ 43%)

so the restorations contained less Hg. (Marshall and Marshall, 1992)

Over time amalgam restorations undergo several phase changes. (Marshall et al., 1992) When the

Sn-Hg (γ2) phase in traditional amalgam corrodes, Sn- and Cl- containing products are formed

and the small amount of Hg generated reacts with residual alloy particles to form more γ1. The

Cu-Sn phase corrodes less than the Sn-Hg phase, but some corrosion occurs, forming Cu-

containing corrosion products. (Marshall et al., 1982). An additional phase change is the

transition from γ1 to the more stable β1 in the matrix. (Marshall et al., 1992) This generates a

small amount of Hg which may react further with residual alloy particles to form more γ1.

To further reduce corrosion and stabilize the γ1 phase, Pd was added to the Ag-Cu eutectic

particles. (Marshall et al., 1982) Resulting microstructures contained similar phase distributions

with Pd incorporated in the reaction zones around the Ag-Cu-Pd particles. Corrosion resistance

was improved, leading to a clinically n improved amalgam. Another potential improvement

utilized a polymeric bonding agent to improve the fracture resistance of amalgam restorations.

(Staninec and Holt, 1988)

Further improvements were largely halted by the move to eliminate the use of amalgam because

of its mercury content. Ultra-sensitive detection equipment revealed some Hg release from

amalgams intraorally. Yet estimates of daily exposure were very low (Berglund, 1990) and
retrieved amalgam from clinical trials showed little Hg being lost during the lifetime of the

restorations. (Marshall et al., 1989) Dental and scientific communities generally believe

amalgam is safe and effective because little Hg ever escapes from restorations, but the demand

for tooth-colored materials coupled with environmental concerns have led to a ban in some

countries and a significant decline in use in others, and will eventually to a phase out in response

to the Minamata convention of 2013. (ADA, 1991; Jones, 2008; Rekow et al., 2013).

The Esthetic Dentistry Revolution - Dental Composites/Light curing

Dental composite materials have been transformational, producing esthetic restorations for all

intraoral applications. Mixing polymerizable monomers with fine glass reinforcing inorganic

filler particles produces an easily manipulated paste that is rapidly curable and provides

outstanding esthetics. Based on the rule-of-mixtures, composite development has always sought

to maximize filler volume fraction (i.e. up to ~80 wt% or 65 vol%) with good filler-matrix

adhesion (Loebenstein and Kumpula, 1977) to enhance properties, (Chantler et al., 1999) without

compromising handling.

The first dental composites were introduced in the 1950’s as self-cure polymethyl methacrylate

(PMMA) with quartz particles added for strengthening. To address the clinical issues of high

shrinkage and poor abrasion resistance, Dr. Rafael Bowen, in the early 1960’s, replaced the

monomethacrylate (MMA) with dimethacrylate monomers, mainly Bis-GMA. (Bowen, 1963)

These materials became popular for clinical use in the early 1970’s. (Rupp, 1979) For decades,

the Bis-GMA dimethacrylate molecule remained the main backbone for dental composites. Bis-

GMA is extremely viscous and requires dilution with lower molecular weight dimethacrylates,
such as triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), which enhances overall curing and

properties. (Ferracane and Greener, 1984) Dimethacrylate-based matrices produce highly cross-

linked networks, good mechanical properties, relatively low water sorption and solubility,

accommodation of high filler loading, good translucency, and reduced polymerization shrinkage,

all leading to better clinical performance compared to acrylics. Yet, the polymerization shrinkage

remains substantial, producing stress at the tooth-composite interface, and requiring the use of

adhesives with high bond strengths. (Davidson et al., 1984; Feilzer et al., 1987) This led to

intensive study into adhesives, as well as alternative placement methods for use by dental

practitioners to mitigate curing stresses, and ultimately to new composites with lower shrinkage

and shrinkage stress.

Early composites were two paste, self-cure systems with limited working time and high porosity

due to air entrapment during mixing. Incorporating a UV photoinitiator produced a single paste

system that polymerized only when exposed to UV light from a curing unit. (Cook, 1980) Health

concerns over personnel exposure to UV and limited depth of cure stimulated the search for an

alternative light curing system. In the late 1970’s, the introduction of camphorquinone (CQ) with

an amine accelerator produced a system with greater depth of cure (i.e. typically 2 mm) when

exposed to visible blue light from a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) source, the extent being

dependent upon the composite’s formulation. (Forsten, 1984) Alternative monomer systems,

such as urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), were introduced to partially or fully replace Bis-

GMA. (Peutzfeldt, 1997)

A clinical problem with early composites was obtaining and maintaining a highly polished

surface, because large filler particles (i.e. 10-50 µm) were exposed during finishing or intraoral

wear creating a “matte” finish. This pushed composite design toward finer particle sizes. (Bayne

et al., 1994) Initial efforts created the microfill composites, which actually employed nano-sized

silica fillers (40-50 nm). These were highly polishable and remained smooth, but the high surface

area of the particles limited filler concentration and lowered mechanical properties. (Lambrechts

and Vanherle, 1983) In the early 1980’s, hybrid composites arrived with a combination of larger

fillers for strength and smaller particles to pack into the spaces between larger particles. These

composites were strong, but early hybrids were still not very polishable and demonstrated limited

clinical wear resistance. (Powers et al., 1983) Alternative grinding techniques produced smaller

glass particles, leading to the “midifill” (largest particles of a few µm) and “minifill” composites

(largest particles less than 1 µm). Clinical wear decreased with reduced spacing between

particles. (Bayne et al., 1992). These efforts ultimately led to the highly clinically successful and

popular microhybrids (1990’s) and nanohybrids (2000’s).

A further advance (1990’s) was possible with LED (light emitting diode) curing devices tuned to

the 450-470 nm wavelength range required by CQ. (Mills et al., 1999) Early devices had

relatively low power output, but redesigns ultimately replaced QTH lights. LED lights produced

much less heat, required less energy, and were more amenable for battery powered options. With

time, more esthetic (less yellow) photoinitiators were employed that absorbed closer to the UV

range (around 400 nm). (Stansbury, 2000) These initiators require a light with an additional LED

to match their absorbance, leading to the polywave lights. (Price et al., 2015)
Other formulations for dental composites have provided materials easier to manipulate and place,

such as flowable composites, (Bayne et al., 1998) based initially on lower filler content and

enabling placement from a small cannula syringe. Packable composites (Leinfelder et al., 1999)

were viscous pastes that did not slump, were easier to shape, and tried to mimic amalgam

handling. Recently (~2010) bulk-fill composites have been developed by enhancing

translucency, allowing greater light penetration to cure 4-5 mm and potentially save clinical

placement time. (Czasch and Ilie, 2013) These materials also boast lower shrinkage stress, which

is critical when filling cavities with such large increments of material.

The Adhesive Dentistry Revolution - Dental Bonding and Adhesive Cements

Well-adapted, bonded dental materials are believed to discourage or prevent salivary leakage and

bacterial penetration. Optimism for successful adhesion in dentistry was spurred by early

observations of adhesion in wet environments for things like mussels [Dove and Sheridan, 1986].

Perhaps the greatest advance in adhesion in dentistry occurred when acid etching was shown to

enhance retention of an acrylic resin to enamel. [Buonocore, 1955].

A cascade of advancements followed the next 50 years. Investigators focused first on etching

parameters: (1) acid types (mineral (H3PO4, HCl, H2SO4), organic (citric, tartaric, maleic,

EDTA, pyruvic); (2) acid concentration (10% to 85%); (3) etching times (10-120 seconds); (4)

dissolution of the smear layer (Bowen, 1976); and (5) surface precipitates from etching. Surface

reactions were studied: (6) enamel etching patterns (Type 1, 2, mixed) (Marshall et al., 1975),

(7) dentin moisture effects (dry, moist, wet) (Tao and Pashley, 1989; Kanca, 1992); (8) etching

extent (enamel-only, enamel and dentin, dentin only); (9) dentin depth (superficial, middle,
deep); and (10) dentin age (Tagami et al., 1993). Procedural variables were evaluated: (11)

etchant application techniques (paint, dab, scrub); (12) number of system components (three-

component (Pashley et al, 2011), two-component, one-component systems (Van Meerbeek et al.,

2011)); (13) liquids versus gels; and (14) pre-treatments (bleaching (Shinohara et al., 2005;

Toko and Hisamitsu, 1993), air-abrasion, fluoride, lasers; oxalate (Pashley et al., 1993), Gluma

(Munksgaard and Asmussen, 1985), sealers; antibacterial treatments, cleansing agents. Hybrid

layer contributions were revealed: (15) patterns of macro-and-micro resin tags (enamel:

interprismatic and intraprismatic (Jorgensen and Shimokobe, 1975; Marshall GW et al., 1988);

dentin: intertubular and hybrid layer with collagen (Nakabayashi, 1992)), (16) hybrid layer

quality and variations (Van Meerbeek et al., 1992; 1993); (17) different enamel and dentin types

(e.g., primary vs secondary teeth; hypoplasia, fluorosis (Opinya and Pamejier, 1986), imperfecta

(Hiraishi et al., 2008), schlerotic dentin (Ritter et al., 2008), carious (Yoshiyama et al., 2002));

and (18) key monomers (HEMA (Ruyter, 1992), NPG-GMA (Alexieva, 1979; Jedrychowski et

a., 1979), PMDM (Bowen RL, 1987)).

Very few in-depth clinical trials of variables exist or are long-term enough to detect differences

between adhesives. Most only use Class-V adhesive preparation designs. In reality, most

bonded restorations are placed within previous cavity preparations, which include gross

mechanical retention and thus exclude determination of true adhesive properties. Thus, few

correlations of laboratory results and clinical performance are observed (Bayne, 2012; Heintze et

al., 2015). Successful bonding typically involves 20 MPa in macro-shear or 30-40 MPa in micro-

tension. Bond strengths vary with time and storage solutions. Longevity is affected by fatigue,

bond decomposition and extent of enamel versus dentin interface.

Enamel etching is best using H3PO4 aqueous solutions on clean enamel with protection of

selectively dissolved enamel rods. Dentin etching involves similar care, except agitation

improves acid access to the dentin surface. Newer bonding strategies [Breschi et al., 2018] focus

on preventing endogenous dentin enzymes (matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine cathepsins)

from degrading the integrity of the hybrid layer’s collagen necessary for the persistence of good

bonding.

Adhesion involves more than just the interface to tooth structure. Adhesive joints require

bonding teeth to other surfaces using other acids (e.g., HF) or air abrasion to create micro-relief

on ceramics, composites and metals, and often employ coupling agents (e.g., silanes, 4-META).

Since the 1850s, cements have been used to attach cast restorations to tooth structure. Cement

categories include traditional acid-base, polymeric-acid-base, and composite types. In 1870,

cement choices were zinc phosphate (ZP) or zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE). ZOE released eugenol

to produce obtundent quality, but had limited strength. Additives improved ZOE strength (EBA;

Brauer and Stansbury, 1984), PMMA, hexyl vanillate (Brauer and Stansbury, 1984]), but ZP was

preferred. Silicate cements (SC) were used as filling materials with the advantage of fluoride (F)

release but underwent clinical disintegration relatively easily.

Cement retention relies on luting (mechanical interlocking) and/or chemical adhesion. Major

cement advances occurred in the 1960s. Polyacrylic acid was substituted for phosphoric acid and

was reacted with zinc oxide. (Smith, 1967) Glass ionomer (Wilson et al., 1977a) utilized
polyacrylic acid and replaced zinc oxide with fluoro-aluminosilicate glass, much like the powder

component of SC. (Wilson et al., 1977b) GI was modified to produce several variants (metal-

modified GI (Tjan and Morgan, 1989), resin-modified GI (Wilson, 1990a), compomers (Tay et

al., 2001), giomers (Tay et al., 2001), and carbomers (Koenraads et al., 2009) intended as tooth-

colored filling materials. Applications and compositions were quite varied including calcium

phosphate (LeGeros, 1988) and calcium silicate versions (Duarte et al., 2018).

Cements formulated with a source of mobile F ions will release F over time (Forsten, 1977), with

a large burst occurring in the first few hours followed by lower levels thereafter. F can be re-

absorbed by those materials (recharging) if an external source with high F ion concentration is

temporarily available, but levels again decay quickly (Forsten, 1996). Other cements release

minor amounts of F ion due to additions of CaF2 as a mixing aid or SnF2 as an additive to

counteract acid demineralization of the enamel. Clinical effects of this fluoride release remains

unclear.

Dental cements have composite-like microstructures with continuous (or matrix) and dispersed

(or filler) phases. Dispersed components invariably are stronger and control the properties of the

final mixture, but increase pre-set viscosity. A great myth in dentistry is that cement film

thicknesses should be ≤ 25 µm. Lab sectioning of cemented crowns reveals true cement

thicknesses varying from 50-250 µm. The practical target for good fit is assumed to be ≤100

µm, and is at least anecdotally supported by good clinical outcomes.

PC and GI cements, along with certain carboxylic and phosphoric acid containing resin cements,

potentially chelate available Ca+ ions in tooth structure. While chemical adhesion is possible, the

aqueous nature of these cements facilitates better adaptation to tooth structure and may

contribute to improved micromechanical retention. Generally, it is more advantageous to use a

CP cement for an all-ceramic restoration, while CP or GI work well with metal surfaces.

Target values for cement properties are defined in the latest ISO standards (ISO, 2018) but with

little foundational support. Few clinical trials (Silvey and Myers, 1976; 1977) have ever been

conducted, and fall far short of the 10-20 years needed to document problems (retention,

resistance to dissolution, secondary caries) and define longevity. Without documentation only

anecdotal reports are available. Luckily, absence of reports seems to infer that cement properties

are sufficient for long term success.

The Dental Ceramic Revolution

Up until about 1960 dental ceramic use was mainly limited to porcelain denture teeth. Land

(1886) had produced ceramic crowns using a feldspathic ceramic, and Pincus (1920’s) had

explored ceramic for veneers. Neither became mainstream due to the low strength of the

ceramics used. (Kelly et al., 1996)

Two developments in the 1960’s profoundly changed the role of ceramic applications in

dentistry. Both relied on the conclusion that the feldspathic ceramic developed by Land would

only survive in the mouth if supported by a high strength substructure. One approach was to use

a cast metal substructure onto which was fired a thin veneer of the ceramic, producing a

porcelain-jacket crown (PJC). This became possible by adding leucite to the feldspathic glass to
match the coefficient of thermal expansion of the underlying metal substructure. (Weinstein et

al., 1962). Another approach used a high-strength ceramic substructure by adding alumina to

reinforce the feldspathic glass. (Mclean and Hughes, 1965). For the first time dental practitioners

could provide patients with highly aesthetic anterior and posterior restorations. These are still

used today with only minor modifications to improve aesthetics and durability of the veneer, and

in some cases reduce costs by using non-gold alloys for the substructure.

In contrast, the alumina-reinforced PJC for anterior crowns had a short clinical life because of

the low strength of the core ceramic. One approach was to increase the alumina content of the

core from the original (~40%), and a highly effective method was to partly pre-sinter pure

alumina and then infiltrate the porous structure with a lanthanum glass. (Jung et al., 1999) The

high strength core had high alumina content (~80%). The next evolution was to employ a 100%

alumina core using a combination of digital processing and CAD-CAM technology. CAD-CAM

soft machining produced a purposely over-sized core from a porous alumina block, which was

then subjected to a high-temperature firing cycle to fully densify it and produce a final

restoration of the correct size. When this system became available in the early 1990’s (Russell et

al., 1995), ceramic crowns and bridges for any location in the mouth became a possibility.

The first zirconia-based dental ceramics also became possible with the advent of digital

processing (Kosmak et al. 1999). A porous block of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YTZ) was soft

machined to the desired over-sized shape and densified by firing to a final correct size. (Suttor

2004) When veneering materials were added for aesthetics, their coefficient of thermal

expansion needed to be somewhere between those of feldspathic veneering ceramics used for
alumina cores and leucite containing feldspars used for metals. (Kim et al. 2008) Zirconia

ceramics are often used in posterior teeth without veneering, but this has met with limited initial

success for anterior applications. (Denry and Kelly, 2014; Zhang and Lawn, 2018), even with

newer formulations having enhanced translucency.

While all-ceramic restorations were being developed, an alternative concept was introduced

called resin-bonded ceramic (Horn, 1983; Calamia, 1983). This process involved bonding thin,

fragile ceramic veneers made from leucite-containing feldspathic ceramics to the tooth structure

using a resin composite, thus relying on a combination of micromechanical bonding using

phosphoric acid etched enamel and HF-etched ceramic. Ceramic veneers became a highly

effective clinical modality to esthetically restore discolored teeth. With the advent of dentin

bonding systems this concept was extended to resin-bonded crowns. Since no metal substructure

was involved, the constraint of compatible thermal expansion coefficients was eliminated. New

veneering ceramics optimized leucite content and strength. (Chen et al., 2011) However, for

resin-bonded bridge and posterior crowns, something much stronger than a leucite-reinforced

feldspar ceramic was required. This gap was filled by a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. (Dong et

al., 1992) While not as strong as YTZ, lithium disilicate is more esthetic and sufficiently strong

for anterior bridges and some low-load short-span posterior bridges. As with zirconia ceramics,

efforts are being made to produce highly aesthetic lithium disilicate glass ceramics that do not

require porcelain veneering (Harada et al., 2016). Monolithic resin bonded ceramic restorations

that do not require veneers have the advantage of less clinical chipping and more simplified

manufacturing.

The Evolution of Dental Materials for Tissue Repair – Functional Repair Materials
In the early 1900s, dental materials were designed only to replace tissue lost to disease or trauma.

As understanding of disease processes such as dental caries occurred, approaches to restore

function began to include repair of dental tissues as well. Use of fluoride to reverse early enamel

caries was a significant milestone in dental research, establishing a basis for minimally invasive

approaches to directly repair enamel, dentin and cementum.

Enamel remineralization is an accepted treatment (ten Cate, 2001, Featherstone, 2000) for early

lesions, and several topically applied fluoride-delivery systems exist, including varnishes, rinsing

solutions, drinking water, and toothpastes. Such remineralization is possible since enamel is

mainly apatite mineral as a result of the almost complete removal of the guiding proteins during

maturation. Bacterial metabolism of ingested carbohydrates within adherent biofilms results in a

reduction in pH and partial loss of the surface of the enamel crystallites. When the pH returns to

normal levels the crystallite size can be restored by remineralization in the presence of calcium

and phosphate. Re-precipitation is enhanced by fluoride which can be incorporated in the apatite

crystallite surfaces reducing susceptibility to future demineralization.

However, fluoride’s ability to promote surface precipitation can block remineralization in deeper

demineralized areas. Thus, significant recent research (ten Cate, 2012) has focused on casein-

amorphous calcium phosphates (ACP) (Cochrane and Reynolds 2012) and chitosan-ACP (Zhang

et al, 2014) to retard early surface precipitation while promoting subsurface remineralization.

Other ion-releasing materials for promoting apatite formation include silicate-based bioglass.

Because mature enamel is acellular, structure loss due to cavitation, attrition, or bruxism cannot

be restored simply using fluoride treatments. Significant current research is aimed at

understanding how enamel is formed (Habelitz, 2015), and alternative future approaches may be

directed to artificially build enamel (Yamagishi et al, 2005 Prajapati et al, 2018).

While dentin is also an apatitic structure, it is actually a reinforced hydrated composite with

collagen. But its lower mineral content, smaller apatite crystallite size, and its higher carbonate

content make it more susceptible to rapid demineralization by cariogenic acids compared to

enamel. To restore its structure and mechanical properties, it is necessary to reintroduce mineral

both within the collagen fibrils (intrafibrillar mineral) and between the collagen fibrils

(extrafibrillar mineral) (Kinney et al., 2003; Bertassoni et al., 2009).

This requirement was often overlooked and approaches that successfully induced apatite mineral

in enamel only produced superficial mineral for dentin. Gower and colleagues introduced the

concept that proteins involved with biomineralization might be mimicked by charged polymers,

such as polyaspartic acid, leading to the development of the polymer-induced liquid precursor

(PILP) system (Olszta et al., 2003; 2007; Gower, 2008). PILP has been applied to many

collagen-based matrices and provides in vitro remineralization of artificial caries lesions

(Burwell et al., 2012). A related approach using polyacrylic acid was introduced by Tay and

Pashley (2008; 2009).

There are many nucleation inhibitors, including phosvitin, osteopontin and others, that provide

intrafibrillar mineralization in dentin and bone collagens by sequestering calcium and phosphate

ions in nanodrops that eventually release the ions into collagen fibrils. Once in the fibrils, ACP

forms and transforms to aligned apatite crystals similar to those in native dentin. This approach
provides 100% remineralization in the deeper half of 150 µm deep artificial caries lesions after

several weeks in solution, but only about 60% in the more demineralized outer portions (Burwell

et al., 2012, Saeki et al., 2017). Efforts are ongoing to develop new cements that could be placed

clinically to provide long term remineralization.

The efficacy of the PILP remineralization approach for dentin caries has not been proven

clinically and a variety of additional barriers must be overcome to provide new clinical

treatments. Compared to artificial lesions, natural caries is more complicated because it involves

bacteria biofilms that change as the lesion progresses, and because collagen may be altered or

partially degraded due to endogenous MMPs or cathepsins (Vidal et al., 2014; Mazzoni et al.,

2015). Critical research continues on MMP inhibitors, as well as in gaining increased knowledge

about the complexity of oral biofilms. Other active research areas to reduce caries involve cavity

disinfectants and antimicrobials that can be added to composites and glass-ionomer restoratives

(Imazato, 2009; Hirose et al., 2016; Farrugia and Calmilleri, 2015).

Future discoveries

What is on the horizon for new dental restorative materials? Imagine a limitless bulk-fill

composite that self-adheres to all tooth structure and has antibacterial properties. Perhaps these

materials will be hardened by alternative “instant” curing technologies, not relying upon light

penetration through several mm, but by the delivery of other sources of activating energy. Future

materials will not only functionally restore without adverse biologic effects, but stimulate

beneficial biological responses that encourage natural repair of small defects in the tooth. In situ

tissue engineered replacements of whole tooth structures and entire dental pulps are already

being explored. New research is underway to understand the complex interplay between
extracellular matrix properties, cell differentiation and angiogenesis. Materials with native

antimicrobial characteristics could effectively deter the formation of deleterious microbial

biofilms, not through indiscriminate killing, but via selective colonization and or antifouling

strategies. These materials will accommodate beneficial “bioactive molecules” capable of being

released in situ for an on-demand response to a potential problem. It is also likely that these new

materials will contain sensor molecules or compounds that monitor events occurring at margins

and surfaces to alert clinicians and patients to potential issues preventable by early intervention.

And as the move continues toward more minimally invasive treatment strategies, repair of

restorations will increase, possibly through infiltration techniques to effectively de-stain and/or

reseal restoration margins. New ceramics will have high strength, rivaling zirconia, but be highly

esthetic and translucent, completely circumventing the need for veneering. These materials will

be fabricated chairside by additive manufacturing methods using a fully digital clinical workflow

that will also incorporate computer controlled ion implantation techniques to esthetically color

the final prosthesis. The further development of zirconia implants will provide more esthetic

designs than titanium, while maintaining adequate strength and toughness and excellent

biological tolerance.

Acknowledgments

The authors did not receive any funding for the development of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report related to this article and its

contents.
Author Contributions
All five authors contributed to conception, contributed to acquisition, analysis, and
interpretation, drafted the manuscript, critically revised the manuscript, gave final approval, and
agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
References
ADA. Facts about Dental Amalgam, 1991, Chicago, IL.
Alexieva C. 1979. Character of the hard tooth tissue-polymer bond I. Study of the interaction of
calcium phosphate with N-phenylglycine and with N-phenyglycine methacrylate adduct. J
Dent Res. 58(9):1879-1883.
Bayne SC. 2012. Correlation of clinical performance with “in vitro tests of restorative dental
materials that use polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater. 28(1):52-71.
Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO. 1992. Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent
Mater. 8(5):305-309.
Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr. 1994. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent
Assoc. 125(6):687-701.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. 1998. A characterization of
first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 129(5):567-577.
Berglund A. 1990. Estimation by a 24-hour study of the daily dose of intra-oral mercury vapor
inhaled after release from dental amalgam. J Dent Res. 69(10):1646-1651.
Bertassoni LE, Habelitz S, Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. Jr. 2009. Biomechanical
perspective on the remineralization of dentin. Caries Res. 43(1):70-7.
Bowen RL. 1963. Properties of a silica-reinforced polymer for dental restorations. J Am Dent
Assoc. 66(Jan):57-64.
Bowen RL, US Patent No. 4,659,751. 1987. Simplified method for obtaining strong adhesive
bonding of composites to dentin, enamel, and other substrates.
Bowen RL. 1978. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues – solubility of
dentinal smear layer in dilute acid buffers. Int Dent J. 28(2):97-107.
Brauer GM, Stansbury JW. 1984. Cements containing syringic acid esters–o-ethoxybenzoic acid
and zinc oxide. J Dent Res. 63(2):137-140.
Brauer GM, Stansbury JW. 1984. Intermediate restoratives from n-hexyl vanillate-EBA-ZnO-
glass composites. J Dent Res. 63(11):1315-1320.
Breschi L, Maravic T, Cunha SR, Comba A, Cadenaro M, Tjaderhane L, Pashley DH, Tay FR,
Mazzoni A. 2018. Dentin bonding systems: from dentin collagen structure to bond
preservation and clinical applications. Dent Mater. 34(1):78-86.
Buonocore MG. 1955. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to
enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 34(6):849-853.
Burwell AK, Thula-Mata T, Gower LB, Habelitz S, Kurylo M, Ho SP, Chien YC, Cheng J,
Cheng NF, Gansky SA, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. 2012. Functional remineralization of
dentin lesions using polymer-induced liquid-precursor process. PLoS One. 7(6):e38852.
Calamia JR. 1983. Etched porcelain facial veneers: a new treatment modality based on scientific
and clinical evidence. N Y J Dent. 53(6):255-259.
Chantler PM, Hu X, Boyd NM. 1999. An extension of a phenomenological model for dental
composites. Dent Mater. 15(2):144-149.
Chen X, Chadwick TC, Wilson RM, Hill RG, Cattell MJ. 2011. Crystallization and flexural
strength optimization of fine-grained leucite glass-ceramics for dentistry. Dent Mater.
27(11):1153-1161
Clause H. 1990. Vita In-Ceram, a new system for producing aluminium oxide crown and bridge
substructures (German). Quintessens Zalmtech. 16:35-46.
Cochrane NJ, Reynolds EC. 2012. Calcium phosphopeptides -- mechanisms of action and
evidence for clinical efficacy. Adv Dent Res. 24(2):41-47.
Cook WD. 1980. Factors affecting the depth of cure of UV-polymerized composites. J Dent Res.
59(5):800-808.
Featherstone JD. 2000. The science and practice of caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc.
131(7):887-899.
Czasch P, Ilie N. 2013. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk
fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 17(1):227-235.
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. 1884. The competition between the composite-dentin bond
strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 63(12):1396-1399.
Denry I, Kelly JR. 2014. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res.
93(12):1235-1242
Dong JK, Luthy H, Wohlwend A, Scharer P. 1992. Heat-pressed ceramics: technology and
strength. Int J Prosthodont. 5(1):9-16.
Dove J, Sheridan P. 1986. Adhesive protein from mussels: possibilities for dentistry, medicine,
and industry. J Am Dent Assoc. 112(6):879.
Duarte MAH, Marciano MA, Vivan RR, Tanomaru Filho M, Tanomaru JMG, Camilleri J. 2018.
Tricalcium silicate-based cements: properties and modifications. Braz Oral Res. 32(Suppl
1):e70
Eakle WS, Staninec M, Lacy AM. 1992. Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of
teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 68(2):257-260.
Farrugia C, Camilleri J. 2015. Antimicrobial properties of conventional restorative filling
materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer
cements-A literature review. Dent Mater. 31(4):e89-e99.
Ferracane JL, Greener EH. 1984. Fourier transform infrared analysis of degree of polymerization
in unfilled resins--methods comparison. J Dent Res.;63(8):1093-1095.
Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to
configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 66(11):1636-1639.
Forsten L. 1996. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its
clinical effect. Biomaterials. 19(6):503-508.
Forsten L. 1977. Fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res. 85(6):503-
504.
Gower LB. 2008. Biomimetic model systems for investigating the amorphous precursor pathway
and its role in biomineralization. Chem Rev. 108(11):4551-627.
Greener EH. 1979. Amalgam-yesterday, today and tomorrow. Oper Dent. 4(1):24-35.
Habelitz S. 2015. Materials engineering by ameloblasts. J Dent Res. 94(6):759-67.
Harada K, Raigrodski AJ, Chung KH, Flinn BD, Dogan S, Mancl LA. 2016. A comparative
evaluation of the translucency of zirconias and lithium disilicate for monolithic restorations. J
Prosthet Dent. 116(2):257-263.
Heintze SD, Rousson V, Mahn E. 2015. Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their
correlation with clinical results – a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 31(4):423-434.
Hiraishi N, Yiu CK, King NM. 2008. Effect of acid etching time on bond strength of an etch-
and-rinse adhesive to tooth dentine affected by amelogenesis imperfecta. Int J Paediatr Dent.
18(3):224-230.
Holland GA, Asgar K. 1974. Some Effects on the Phases of Amalgam Induced by Corrosion. J
Dent Res. 53(5):1245–1254.
Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. 1989. Considerations in measurement of
marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 62(4):405-408.
Horn H. 1983. A new lamination. Porcelain bonded to enamel. NYJ Dent. 49(6):401-403.
Innes DB, Youdelis WV. 1963. Dispersion strengthened amalgam. J Can Dent Assoc. 29:587-
593.
ISO 9917. 1991. Dental water-based cements. 1-13.
ISO Standards, https://www.iso.org/ics/11.060.10/x/ , 2018-10-26.
Jedrychowski JR, Caputo AA, Foliart RA. 1979. Effects of adhesion promoters on resin-enamel
retention. J Dent Res. 58(4):1371-1376.
Jorgensen KD, Shimokobe H. 1975. Adaptation of resinous restorative materials to acid etched
enamel surfaces. Scand J Dent Res. 83(1):31-36.
Jones DW. 2008. Has Dental Amalgam Been Torpedoed and Sunk? J Dent Res. 87(2):101-102.
Jung Y-G, Peterson IM, Pajares A, Lawn BR. 1999. Contact damage resistance and strength
degradation of glass-infiltrated alumina and spinel ceramics. J Dent Res. 77(3):804-814
Kanca J. 1992. Resin bonding to wet substrate. 1. Bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int. 23(1):39-
41.
Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. 1996. Ceramics in dentistry: historical roots and current
perspectives. J Prosthet Dent. 75(1):18-32.
Kim JW, Kim JH, Janal MN, Zhang Y. 2008. Damage maps of veneered zirconia under
simulated mastication, J Dent Res. 87(12):1127-1132.
Kinney JH, Habelitz S, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. 2003. The importance of intrafibrillar
mineralization of collagen on the mechanical properties of dentin. J Dent Res. 82(12):957-
961.
Koenraads H, Van der Kroon G, Frencken JE. 2009. Compressive strength of two newly
developed glass-ionomer materials for use with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART)
approach in class II cavities. Dent Mater. 25(4):551-556.
Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. 1999. The effect of surface grinding and
sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater.
15(6):426–433
LeGeros RZ. 1988. Calcium phosphate materials in restorative dentistry: a review. Adv Dent
Res. 2(1):164-180.
Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. 1983. Structural evidences of the microfilled composites. J Biomed
Mater Res. 17(2):249-260.
Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. 1999. Packable composites: overview and technical
considerations. J Esthet Dent. 11(5):234-249.
Letzel H, Van 'T Hof MA, Marshall GW and Marshall SJ. 1997. The Influence of the Amalgam
Alloy on the Survival of Amalgam Restorations: A Secondary Analysis of Multiple
Controlled Clinical Trials. J Dent Res. 76(11):1787-1798.
Loebenstein WV, Kumpula JW. 1977. New method evaluates coupling agents bonding polymer
to tooth mineral. J Dent Res. 56(10):1219-1226.
Mahler DB. 1997. The high-copper dental amalgam alloys. J Dent Res. 76(1):537–541.
Mahler DB, Adey JD, Van Eysden J. 1975 Quantitative microprobe analysis of amalgam. J Dent
Res. 54(2):218-226.
Mahler DB, Van Eysden JV. 1969. Dynamic Creep of Dental Amalgam. J Dent Res. 48(4):501–
508.
Marshall GW, Olson LM, Lee CV. 1975. SEM investigation of the variability of enamel surfaces
after simulated clinical acid etching for pit and fissure sealants. J Dent Res. 54(6):1222-1231.
Marshall GW, Marshall SJ, Szurgot K, Greener EH. 1982. Properties of Ag-Cu-Pd dispersed-
phase amalgams: microstructures. J Dent Res. 61(6):802-804.
Marshall GW, Marshall SJ, Bayne SC. 1988. Restorative dental materials: SEM and x-ray
microanalysis. J Scan Elec Micros. 2(4):2007-2028.
Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. 1980. Sn4(OH)6Cl2 and SnO corrosion products of amalgam
restorations. J Dent Res. 59(5):820-823.
Marshall SJ, Lin JHC, Marshall GW. 1982. Cu2O and CuCl23Cu(OH)2 corrosion products on
copper rich dental amalgams. J Biomed Mater Res. 16(1):81-85.
Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. Dental amalgam: The materials. Adv Dent Res. 1992;6:94-99.
Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Letzel H. 1992. Gamma-1 to beta-1 phase transformation in retrieved
clinical amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 8(3):162-166.
Mazzoni A, Tjäderhane L, Checchi V, Di Lenarda R, Salo T, Tay FR, Pashley DH, Breschi L.
2015. Role of dentin MMPs in caries progression and bond stability. J Dent Res. 94(2):241-
251.
McLean JW, Hughes TH. 1965. The reinforcement of dental porcelain with ceramic oxides. Br
Dent J. 119(6):251-254.
Mills RW, Jandt KD, Ashworth SH. 1999. Dental composite depth of cure with halogen and blue
light emitting diode technology. Br Dent J. 186(8):388-391.
Munksgaard EC, Asmussen E. 1985. Dentin-polymer bond promoted by Gluma and various
resins. J Dent Res. 64(12):1409-1411.
Nakabayashi N, Akarada K. 1992. Effect of HEMA on bonding to dentin. Dent Mater. 8(2):125-
130.
Nakabayashi N. 1992. The hybrid layer. A resin-dentin composite. Proc Finn Dent Soc. 88(Suppl
1):321-329.
Olszta MJ, Douglas EP, Gower LB. 2003. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of the
mineralization of type I collagen via a polymer-induced liquid-precursor (PILP) process.
Calcified Tissue International. 72(5):583-591.
Olszta MJ, Cheng XG, Jee SS, Kumar R, Kim YY, Kaufman MJ, Douglas EP, Gower LB. 2007.
Bone structure and formation: A new perspective. Mater SciEng R Rep. 58(3-5):77-116.
Opinya GN, Pameijer CH. 1986. Tensile bond strength of fluorosed Kenyan teeth using the acid
etch technique. Int Dent J. 36(4):225-229.
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjaderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho J, Tezvergil-Mutluay A.
2011. State of the art of etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 27(1):1-16.
Pashley EL, Tao L, Pashley DH. 1993. Effects of oxalate on dentin bonding. Am J Dent.
6(3):116-118.
Peutzfeldt A. 1997. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci.
105(2):97-116.
Prajapati S, Ruan Q, Mukherjee K, Nutt S, Moradian-Oldak J. 2018. The presence of MMP-20
reinforces biomimetic enamel regrowth). J Dent Res. 97(1):84-90.
Price RB, Ferracane JL, Shortall AC. 2015. Light-curing units: A review of what we need to
know. J Dent Res. 94(9):1179-1186.
Powers JM, Ryan MD, Hosking DJ, Goldberg AJ. 1983. Comparison of in vitro and in vivo wear
of composites. J Dent Res. 62(10):1089-1091.
Rekow ED, Fox CH, Watson T, Peterson PE. 2013. Future innovation and research in dental
restorative materials. Adv Dent Res. 25(1):2-7.
Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr. 2008. Clinical evaluation of an
all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis.
Oper Dent. 33(4):370-378.
Rupp NW. 1979. Clinical placement and performance of composite resin restorations. J Dent
Res. 58(5):1551-1557.
Russell MM, Andersson M, Dahlmo K, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. 1995. A new computer-assisted
method for fabrication of crowns and fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int. 26(11):757-
763.
Ruyter IE. 1992. The chemistry of adhesive agents. Oper Dent. Suppl 5:32-43.
Saeki K, Chien YC, Nonomura G, Chin AF, Habelitz S, Gower LB, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW.
2017. Recovery after PILP remineralization of dentin lesions created with two cariogenic
acids. Arch Oral Biol. 82(Oct):194-202.
Shinohara MS, Peris AR, Pimenta LA, Ambrosano GM. 2005. Shear bond strength evaluation of
composite resin on enamel and dentin after nonvital bleaching. J Esthet Restor Dent.
17(1):22-29.
Silvey RG, Myers GE. 1977. Clinical study of dental cements: VI. A study of zinc phosphate,
EBA-reinforced zinc oxide eugenol and polyacrylic acid cements as luting agents in fixed
prostheses. J Dent Res. 56(10):1215-1218.
Silvey RG, Myers GE. 1976. Clinical studies of dental cements: V. Recall examination of
restorations cemented with zinc oxide-eugenol cement and a zinc phosphate cement. J Dent
Res. 55(2):289-291.
Smith DC. 1967. A new dental cement. Br Dent J. 123(11):540-541.
Staninec M, Holt M. 1988. Bonding of amalgam to tooth structure: tensile adhesion and
microleakage tests. J Prosthet Dent. 59(4):397-402.
Stansbury JW. 2000. Curing dental resins and composites by photopolymerization. J Esthet Dent.
12(6):300-308.
Suttor D. 2004. LAVA zirconia crowns and bridges. Int J Computerized Dent. 7(1):67-76.
Tay FR, Pashley EL, Huang C, Hashimoto M, Sano H, Smales RJ, Pashley DH. 2001. The glass-
ionomer phase in resin-based restorative materials. J Dent Res. 80(9):1808-1812.
Tjan AH, Morgan DL. 1988. Metal-reinforced glass ionomers: their flexural and bond strengths
to tooth substrates. J Prosthet Dent. 59(2):137-141.
Tagami J, Nakajima M, Shono T, Takatsu T, Hosoda H. 1993. Effect of aging on dentin bonding.
Am J Dent. 6(3):145-147.
Tao L, Pashley DH. 1989. Dentin perfusion effects on the shear bond strengths of bonding agents
to dentin. Dent Mater. 5(3):181-184.
Tay FR, Pashley DH. 2008. Guided tissue remineralisation of partially demineralised human
dentine. Biomaterials. 29(8):1127-1137.
Tay FR, Pashley DH. 2009. Biomimetic remineralization of resin-bonded acid-etched dentin. J
Dent Res. 88(8):719-724
Toko T, Hisamitsu H. 1993. Shear bond strength of composite resin to unbleached and bleached
human dentine. Asian J Aesthet Dent. 1(1):33-36.
ten Cate JM. 2001. Remineralization of caries lesions extending into dentin. J Dent Res.
80(5):1407-1411.
ten Cate JM. 2012. Novel anticaries and remineralizing agents: prospects for the future. J Dent
Res. 91(9):813-815.
Van Meerbeek B, Dhem A, Goret-Nicaise M, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. 1993.
Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resin-dentin
interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res. 72(2):495-501
Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. 1992. Morphological
aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent
Res. 71(8):1530-1540.
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida YK, DeMunck MA, Van Landuyt KL. 2011. State of the art of self-
etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 27(1):17-28.
Vidal CM, Tjäderhane L, Scaffa PM, Tersariol IL, Pashley D, Nader HB, Nascimento FD,
Carrilho MR. 2014. Abundance of MMPs and cysteine cathepsins in caries-affected dentin. J
Dent Res. 93(3):269-274.
Vrijhoef MM, Driessens FC. 1973. X-Ray diffraction analysis of Cu6Sn5 formation during
setting of dental amalgam. J Dent Res. 52(4):841–841.
Weinstein M, Katz S, Weinstein AB. Fused porcelain-to-metal teeth. 1962. US Patent 3,052,982.
Wilson AD, Crisp S, Lewis BG, McLean JW. 1977. Experimental luting agents based on the
glass ionomer cements. Brit Dent J. 142(4):117-122.
Wilson AD, Kent BE. 1972. A new translucent cement for dentistry, the glass ionomer cement.
Brit Dent J. 132(4):133-135.
Wilson AD. 1990. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont. 3(5):425-429.
Yamagishi K, Onuma K, Suzuki T, Okada F, Tagami J, Otsuki M, Senawangse P. 2005.
Materials chemistry: a synthetic enamel for rapid tooth repair. Nature. 433(7028):819.
Yoshiyama M, Tay FR, Doi J, Nishitani Y, Yamada T, Itou, Carvalho RM, Nakajima M, Pashley
DH. 2002. Bonding of self-etch and total-etch adhesives to carious dentin. J Dent Res.
81(8):556-560.
Zhang X, Li Y, Sun X, Kishen A, Deng X, Yang X, Wang H, Cong C, Wang Y, Wu M. 2014.
Biomimetic remineralization of demineralized enamel with nano-complexes of
phosphorylated chitosan and amorphous calcium phosphate. J Mater Sci Mater Med.
25(12):2619-2628.
Zhang Y, Lawn BR. 2018. Novel zirconia materials for dentistry. J Dent Res. 97(2):140-147.
Figure Legends
Figure 1: Timeline of milestones in dental materials (1919-2018). Entries display in alphabetical

order developments/discoveries that occurred during each decade, with specific efforts that had

the highest clinical impact identified with an asterisk.

Figure 2: Publication milestones for dental materials in JDR (1918-2018). (Appearances of major

topic words in Journal of Dental Research citation titles or abstracts in Pubmed from years 1945

through 2018. Search algorithms: J Dent Res AND amalgam; J Dent Res AND (ceramic or

porcelain); J Dent Res AND (bond* OR adhe* OR luting) AND cement; J Dent Res AND

composite; J Dent Res AND (Bioactive OR F-release OR reminer*). Citations were not

individually reviewed. All issues from 1919-1944 were manually searched.

 • Amalgam bonding
• CAD/CAM for dentistry (Duret)*
• Calcium phosphate cements
• Chairside CAD-CAM inlay • Amalgam separators used
• Aluminous cores for PJCs • Commercial tooth whitening • Compomers
TIMELINE (1919 to 2018) – (McLean and Hughes) and at-home bleaching • Giomers
• Aluminous porcelains • Dentin bonding advances • Intraoral imaging expands
Dental material milestones • Bis-GMA monomer for
composites (Bowen)*
•
•
Hexylvanillate cements (Brauer)
Hybrid composites
• Layered color printing of
maxillofacial prostheses
• Condensation silicone • Intraoral scanning techniques • Layered metal fabrication of
impressions • Laminate veneers (Faunce) crowns and bridges
• Copper amalgam • Maryland bridges • Lithium disilicate ceramic*
• High copper amalgam (Youdelis • PMDM dentin bonding (Bowen) • MTA and Ca silicate cements
and Innes)* • Porcelain veneers (Horn) • Nanofilled composites
• PFM porcelains* • Renewed amalgam controversy • Selective laser melting (SLM)
• Amalgam controversy - Hg • Acrylic resin bonding to dentin • Pit-and-fissure sealants* • 3-step etch and rinse adhesive* • Self-etching adhesives
• Calcium hydroxide • Silicate cement F anticariogenic* • Polycarboxylate cement (Smith) • Visible-light curing (QTH)* • Silorane resins for composites
• Casting alloys classified • Silicophosphate cements • Silanated composite fillers • ZOE-EBA cements • Zirconia dental implants

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

• Acrylic resin dentures • Accelerators for acrylic • Addition silicone impressions* • Atraumatic Restorative • Bulk-fill composites
1918 • Vitallium screw implant polymerization (Brauer) • Automated vacuum firing furnace Treatment (ART) with GIC • CAD-CAM milling of
• Acid etching of enamel • Branemark dental implants • Dental stereolithography composites for crowns
First (Buonocore)* approved - Sweden • Flowable or packable composite • Minamata Convention -
JDR • Acrylic filling material – • DICOR ceramic crowns (Grossman) • LED curing amalgam phase-out*
issue Sevriton (Kramer and • Effectiveness of pit-and-fissure • Milling techniques (hard or soft) • Polywave curing lights
McLean) sealants demonstrated for ceramics • Resin infiltration of caries
• Branemark – Ti • Glass ionomer cements (Wilson)* • Resin-modified glass ionomer* lesions
osseointegration* • Linkow blade bent implants • Tetragonal zirconia (Ghosh)* • Selective laser sintering (SLS,
• Electric triturators • Lower cost gold casting alloys • Vinyl polyvinyl siloxane auto-mix DMLS, DMLM) -- additive
• Polysulfide impressions • Microfill composites* system (Express) layered metal processing
• Paste-paste commercial composite • Zirconia crowns and bridges • 3D printing for dentistry,
(Adaptic) (Precedent CAD-CAM system) including reconstruction of
• Pt foil technique for porcelain • Zirconia soft machining - entire mandible
crowns (McLean and Sced) (Wohlwend) • Universal adhesives
• UV curing of resins (Waller)
 500

400

Articles (#)
300

200

100

0
1919-1938 1939-1958 1959-1978 1979-1998 1999-2018
Amalgam 6 16 168 166 35
Composite 0 0 66 312 236
Adhesive/Cement 1 18 256 435 399
Ceramic 1 2 49 119 110
Tissue Repair 0 5 27 168 189