# Comparison of post-treatment complications of conventional composites versus self-adhering composites: a review

## TL;DR

This review compares complications of self-adhering and conventional dental composites, finding similar performance but slightly higher microleakage in self-adhering composites.

## Contribution

A systematic comparison of post-treatment complications between self-adhering and conventional composites using clinical trial data.

## Key findings

- SACs and CCs showed comparable marginal adaptation and postoperative sensitivity.
- SACs had slightly higher microleakage in some cases compared to CCs.
- Clinical performance of SACs was found to be comparable to CCs in conservative restorations.

## Abstract

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.