Posterior Composite Restorations

Restorative dentistry has undergone significant evolution over the past few decades, transitioning from the widespread use of amalgam to an increased preference for tooth-colored restorative materials. Posterior composite restorations, in particular, have become a cornerstone of contemporary dental practice, combining functionality with aesthetics. Although dental amalgam remains inexpensive, durable, and easy to handle, its declining popularity stems from environmental concerns, regulatory restrictions, and patients’ aesthetic expectations.

In the modern dental landscape, composite resins are no longer limited to anterior restorations. Advances in adhesive technology, filler composition, and curing mechanisms have made posterior composites a viable and predictable choice for restoring occlusal and proximal lesions in molars and premolars.

Historical Context and Regulatory Influence

Dental amalgam, composed primarily of mercury, silver, tin, and copper, has served dentistry for over 150 years. Despite its proven track record of durability, its mercury content has raised concerns about both patient health and environmental safety. The Control of Mercury (Enforcement) Regulations 2017 in the United Kingdom stipulate that dental amalgam should not be used for the treatment of deciduous teeth, in children under 15 years of age, or in pregnant or breastfeeding women, except where strictly necessary on medical grounds. These regulations reflect a global movement toward reducing mercury use in healthcare, aligning with the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

Consequently, dental professionals are encouraged to transition towards mercury-free alternatives. As regulatory frameworks continue to tighten, it is foreseeable that amalgam will be phased out completely in the near future. This shift underscores the importance of mastering posterior composite restoration techniques and understanding their advantages, limitations, and best practices.

Advertisements

 

Rationale for Posterior Composite Restorations

Posterior composites offer a combination of functional strength and superior aesthetics. The increasing demand for tooth-colored restorations from patients has accelerated their adoption in everyday dental practice. Moreover, improvements in composite resin formulations—such as nanohybrid and bulk-fill composites—have enhanced their wear resistance, polymerization depth, and ease of placement.

From an educational standpoint, dental schools worldwide now emphasize composite restorations as the standard of care for posterior teeth. The growing body of evidence supporting their clinical performance has led many educators to consider composite resin the “material of choice” for posterior restorations. Nevertheless, achieving predictable outcomes requires meticulous technique, proper case selection, and a thorough understanding of adhesive dentistry principles.

 

Indications for Posterior Composite Restorations

Composite resin restorations are indicated in a wide variety of clinical scenarios. Some of the primary indications include:

  1. Primary Carious Lesions
    These are the most common indications, typically involving occlusal, proximal, or smooth surface caries in posterior teeth.
  2. Core Build-Ups
    Composite materials can serve as core build-up materials before crown placement due to their strength, bondability, and ease of manipulation.
  3. Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth
    Teeth that have undergone root canal therapy often require reinforcement and restoration. Composite resins are ideal for reestablishing structure, particularly when cusps are preserved.
  4. Restoration of Worn Teeth
    Occlusal wear caused by attrition, abrasion, or erosion can be managed conservatively using composite resin to restore anatomical form and occlusion.
  5. Repair or Replacement of Failed Restorations
    Composite resins allow easy repair of existing restorations without the need for extensive tooth reduction.
  6. Restorations Extending onto Root Surfaces
    In cases where margins extend below the cementoenamel junction, composites may be used in combination with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in an “open sandwich” technique to improve adhesion and marginal seal.

 

Manipulation of Posterior Composites

The clinical success of posterior composite restorations depends on precise manipulation and adherence to adhesive protocols. The following factors are essential for optimal performance:

Isolation

Effective moisture control is critical, as contamination with saliva or blood significantly reduces bond strength. The use of a rubber dam is strongly recommended to ensure a dry field and prevent postoperative sensitivity.

Cavity Design

Unlike amalgam, composite restorations rely on micromechanical and chemical adhesion rather than mechanical retention. Therefore, cavity preparation should be minimally invasive, removing only infected dentin and unsupported enamel. Undercuts are unnecessary, and cavity design should follow a conservative philosophy.

Beveling

  • Occlusal Bevels: Beveling of occlusal surfaces is contraindicated because it produces thin composite margins prone to fracture under occlusal load.
  • Proximal Margins: A slight bevel on the enamel margin of proximal boxes can enhance bonding and marginal adaptation, provided sufficient enamel is present. However, beveling is not advised if the restoration terminates on dentine or cementum.

 

Lining and Bonding

The use of liners or bases has diminished with the advent of advanced adhesive systems. However, in deep cavities where pulpal proximity exists, a thin layer of calcium hydroxide or resin-modified glass ionomer may be placed for protection. Modern bonding agents—ranging from three-step etch-and-rinse to self-etch systems—allow reliable adhesion between composite and tooth structure.

Matrix Systems

A proper matrix is crucial for achieving well-contoured proximal contacts. Both metal sectional matrices and transparent mylar strips can be used depending on the case. Sectional matrices with separating rings often provide superior contact points and contour in Class II restorations.

Finishing and Polishing

After curing, restorations should be finished and polished using discs, points, cups, or polishing strips. This step enhances aesthetics, minimizes plaque retention, and ensures optimal occlusal integration.

 

Clinical Techniques

1. Technique for Small Cavitated Lesions

For incipient caries or minimal cavities, a preventive resin restoration (PRR) or partial resin restoration is ideal. The procedure involves removing carious tissue using a fine bur or fissure bur and sealing the area with composite or sealant.

If the lesion is small, a fissure sealant alone may suffice. For slightly larger cavities, the lesion is restored with flowable composite followed by sealing of adjacent fissures. This conservative approach preserves tooth structure and prevents the progression of caries.

If the cavity extends into load-bearing regions, a full composite restoration should be carried out.

2. Technique for Medium-Sized Lesions (Class I)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

  1. Tooth Preparation: Remove caries conservatively and shape the cavity.
  2. Etching: Apply phosphoric acid (35–37%) to enamel margins and occlusal surfaces for 15–20 seconds. Rinse thoroughly and dry.
  3. Bonding: Apply a dentine adhesive system according to manufacturer’s instructions (usually 20 seconds). Air-thin gently and light-cure if required.
  4. Restoration: Incrementally place composite in layers no thicker than 2 mm, curing each layer adequately to minimize polymerization shrinkage.
  5. Finishing: Shape and polish the restoration using appropriate finishing instruments.
  6. Occlusion: Remove the rubber dam, check occlusion, and adjust any high spots.

3. Technique for Proximal (Class II) Restorations

Procedure:

  1. Tooth Preparation: Remove caries while preserving marginal ridge structure whenever possible.
  2. Matrix Placement: Place a pre-curved metal matrix band with a wooden or plastic wedge to achieve proper separation and contour.
  3. Etching: Etch enamel margins and occlusal surfaces for 15 seconds. Rinse and dry.
  4. Bonding: Apply an adhesive system and cure as directed.
  5. Restoration: Place composite in increments, beginning with the proximal box and building up occlusally. Cure each increment thoroughly.
  6. Finishing: Polish, remove rubber dam, and check occlusion.

 

Hints for Successful Composite Restorations

  • Use of Etchant Gel: Syringe delivery allows precise placement and minimizes soft tissue contact.
  • Self-Etch Systems: Newer adhesives may combine etching and bonding in one step, reducing chair time and simplifying the process.
  • Incremental Placement: Reduces polymerization shrinkage and internal stress; increments should not exceed 2 mm.
  • Avoid Eugenol: Materials containing eugenol interfere with resin polymerization and should be avoided.
  • Pre-Wedging: Helps achieve tight proximal contact and prevents overhangs.
  • Preserve Centric Stops: Maintain occlusal contacts on sound tooth structure whenever possible to prevent marginal breakdown.

 

Limitations of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations

Despite their numerous advantages, composite restorations have limitations in certain clinical situations:

  1. Cusp Replacements: Large restorations involving cusp coverage are better managed with indirect restorations to reduce stress concentration.
  2. Poor Moisture Control: Adhesive bonding fails in the presence of saliva or blood contamination.
  3. Deep Gingival Extensions: If margins extend below the gingiva, isolation becomes difficult; a bonded base technique may be used as an alternative.
  4. Bruxism: Heavy occlusal forces can lead to fracture or wear of composite restorations.
  5. High Occlusal Load Areas: Indirect restorations such as composite or porcelain inlays/onlays provide better long-term durability.

Indirect options, including laboratory-fabricated composite or porcelain inlays/onlays, can overcome some of these challenges, offering enhanced strength, marginal integrity, and wear resistance.

 

Clinical Performance and Longevity

The longevity of posterior composite restorations has improved substantially due to advancements in material science. Modern composites exhibit lower polymerization shrinkage, higher filler content, and superior wear resistance. Clinical studies report survival rates of 85–90% at 10 years, comparable to amalgam when proper technique is used. Failures are typically due to secondary caries, marginal breakdown, or postoperative sensitivity—issues largely preventable through meticulous technique and isolation.

Proper finishing and polishing not only enhance aesthetics but also improve marginal adaptation, reducing plaque accumulation and discoloration. Periodic maintenance and patient education about oral hygiene are also vital for ensuring long-term success.

 

Educational Considerations

While most dental schools teach posterior composite techniques, variability exists in training quality and emphasis. Some programs still dedicate significant time to amalgam restorations, whereas others focus exclusively on composite. To ensure that graduates meet clinical expectations, curricula must emphasize:

  • Adhesive dentistry principles
  • Isolation techniques
  • Incremental layering and polymerization control
  • Clinical decision-making for material selection

 

Simulation-based training, combined with clinical exposure, equips students with the skills to confidently perform posterior composites under varying clinical conditions.

 

Conclusion

Posterior composite restorations represent a harmonious blend of science, technology, and artistry in modern restorative dentistry. With the gradual phase-out of amalgam and the rise of patient-centered, aesthetic-driven care, composites have become indispensable in the clinician’s armamentarium.

Successful outcomes rely on adherence to fundamental principles: meticulous isolation, conservative cavity design, appropriate bonding protocols, and careful incremental placement. Although direct composites have inherent limitations in high-stress scenarios, their advantages—conservation of tooth structure, aesthetic appeal, and biocompatibility—make them the preferred restorative option for most posterior applications.

As dental materials and adhesive systems continue to evolve, posterior composite restorations will undoubtedly remain central to restorative practice, embodying the ideals of minimally invasive, durable, and aesthetic dentistry.

 

References

  1. Control of Mercury (Enforcement) Regulations 2017. United Kingdom Government. Available online. Accessed November 2025.
  2. Lynch, C. D., McConnell, R. J., Wilson, N. H. F. (2007). Teaching the use of resin composites in clinical dentistry: Is the current teaching program adequate? British Dental Journal, 203(4), 183–188.
  3. Ferracane, J. L. (2011). Resin composite—State of the art. Dental Materials, 27(1), 29–38.
  4. Opdam, N. J., van de Sande, F. H., Bronkhorst, E., et al. (2014). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dental Research, 93(10), 943–949.
  5. Demarco, F. F., Collares, K., Correa, M. B., et al. (2017). Should my composite restorations last forever? Why do they fail? Brazilian Oral Research, 31(suppl 1), 92–99.
  6. van Dijken, J. W. V. (2010). Direct resin composite restorations: Clinical outcomes and factors affecting longevity. Dental Materials, 26(1), e2–e11.
  7. Heintze, S. D., Rousson, V. (2012). Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations – A meta-analysis. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 14(5), 407–431.
  8. Hickel, R., Brüshaver, K., Ilie, N. (2013). Repair of restorations—Criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dental Materials, 29(1), 28–50.
  9. Brunton, P. A., Burke, F. J. T., Sharif, M. O. (2019). Contemporary restorative dental materials and techniques. BDJ Team, 6, Article 19045.
  10. Burke, F. J. T. (2012). Amalgam to composite: Historical perspectives. British Dental Journal, 213(6), 293–294.
  11. Peumans, M., De Munck, J., Van Landuyt, K., Lambrechts, P., Van Meerbeek, B. (2005). Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 7(4), 299–308.
  12. Ilie, N., & Hickel, R. (2011). Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dental Materials, 27(4), 348–355.
  13. Ricketts, D. N. J., Kidd, E. A. M., Smith, B. G. N., & Wilson, R. F. (2006). Advanced Operative Dentistry: A Practical Approach. Elsevier, Edinburgh.
  14. Mount, G. J., Hume, W. R. (2005). Preservation and Restoration of Tooth Structure. 2nd ed. Queensland: Knowledge Books and Software.
  15. Wilson, N. H. F., Lynch, C. D., Brunton, P. A., Hickel, R. (2018). Teaching the use of resin composites in posterior teeth: Updating the curriculum worldwide. European Journal of Dental Education, 22(S1), 26–33.
  16. Sakaguchi, R. L., & Powers, J. M. (2021). Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 15th ed. Elsevier, St. Louis.
  17. Summitt, J. B., Robbins, J. W., Hilton, T. J., Schwartz, R. S. (2019). Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 5th ed. Quintessence Publishing, Chicago.
  18. Van Meerbeek, B., Yoshihara, K., Yoshida, Y., Mine, A., De Munck, J., Van Landuyt, K. (2020). State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dental Materials, 37(1), 99–114.