Dental fillings are among the most common restorative procedures in dentistry, essential for treating cavities, repairing fractured teeth, and restoring function. The evolution of filling materials has transformed restorative dentistry, shifting from traditional amalgam to advanced composite resins, glass ionomer cements, and ceramic-based materials. Modern filling materials prioritize not only strength and durability but also aesthetics, biocompatibility, and ease of application. Composite resins have become particularly popular due to their tooth-like appearance and bonding ability, while glass ionomer cements offer fluoride release and chemical adhesion to tooth structures. Ceramic fillings provide exceptional aesthetics and strength, making them suitable for larger restorations. Despite these advantages, each material also presents limitations. Amalgam, although durable, is criticized for its metallic appearance and mercury content. Composites are prone to wear and shrinkage, while ceramics can be costly and technique-sensitive. This article explores the properties, advantages, and disadvantages of modern filling materials, highlighting their clinical performance and applicability in various dental scenarios. By comparing traditional and contemporary materials, the article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of current trends in restorative dentistry. The findings emphasize the importance of material selection based on patient needs, cavity type, and long-term prognosis to ensure optimal restorative outcomes.

Dental fillings, composite resins, amalgam, glass ionomer cement, ceramics, restorative dentistry, aesthetics, durability, fluoride release, biocompatibility.

Mjör, I.A. (1997). The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica.

Bernardo, M. et al. (2007). Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite restorations. JADA.

Bowen, R.L. (1962). Dental filling material comprising vinyl silane-treated fused silica and a binder consisting of the reaction product of bisphenol and glycidyl acrylate. JADA.

Ferracane, J.L. (2011). Resin composite—state of the art. Dental Materials.

Wilson, A.D., & Kent, B.E. (1972). A new translucent cement for dentistry. British Dental Journal.

Manhart, J., Chen, H., Hamm, G., & Hickel, R. (2004). Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth. Operative Dentistry.

Hickel, R., & Manhart, J. (2001). Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry.

Opdam, N.J., et al. (2014). Clinical performance of composite restorations: a systematic review. Dental Materials.

Mount, G.J., & Hume, W.R. (2005). Preservation and Restoration of Tooth Structure. Wiley-Blackwell.

Peutzfeldt, A. (1997). Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. European Journal of Oral Sciences.

Ilie, N., & Hickel, R. (2011). Resin composite restorative materials. Australian Dental Journal.

van Dijken, J.W.V. (2010). Direct resin composite restorations in clinical practice: Results and longevity. Dental Materials.