Biomimetics is a branch of science that explores the technical beauty of nature. The concept of biomimetics has been brilliantly applied in famous applications such as the design of the Eiffel Tower that has been inspired from the trabecular structure of bone. In dentistry, the purpose of using biomimetic concepts and protocols is to conserve tooth structure and vitality, increase the longevity of restorative dental treatments, and eliminate future retreatment cycles. Biomimetic dental materials are inherently biocompatible with excellent physico-chemical properties. They have been successfully applied in different dental fields with the advantages of enhanced strength, sealing, regenerative and antibacterial abilities. Moreover, many biomimetic materials were proven to overcome significant limitations of earlier available generation counterpart. Therefore, this review aims to spot the light on some recent developments in the emerging field of biomimetics especially in restorative and regenerative dentistry. Different approaches of restoration, remineralisation and regeneration of teeth are also discussed in this review. In addition, various biomimetic dental restorative materials and tissue engineering materials are discussed.

Objectives To evaluate the wear resistance and abrasiveness of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics. Materials and methods Rectangular-shaped specimens (12 mm × 6.5 mm × 1.5 mm) were sectioned from the following CAD/CAM blocks (n = 10); partially crystallized lithium disilicate (PLD), experimental fully crystallized lithium disilicate (FLD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), super-translucent monolithic zirconia (SMZ), and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia (UMZ). Silicon carbide papers were used to mechanically flatten and polish the surfaces. PLD specimens were subjected to a combined crystallization/glazing firing cycle. Ceramic specimens were mounted to the wear device and tested for 200,000 cycles against human premolars at 20 N force and 2 mm sliding distance. Artificial saliva was used as a lubricant. The teeth were scanned using micro-CT before and after the wear test and the generated models were overlapped to determine the volumetric tooth loss. Before and after the test, specimens’ weights and surface roughness (Ra) values were measured, and the differences were calculated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were utilized for microstructural and chemical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA or an equivalent test for non-parametric results. Significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results The type of ceramic material affected the ceramic and antagonist wear rates (P < 0.001). PLD and ZLS had the highest ceramic and antagonist wear, whereas UMZ and SMZ demonstrated the lowest wear values. The FLD group showed comparable antagonist wear and significantly less ceramic wear than PLD and ZLS. Conclusions Monolithic zirconia demonstrated the best wear resistance and least abrasiveness to the antagonist. The experimental lithium disilicate was more wear-resistant than other glass–ceramic groups. Clinical relevance Monolithic zirconia is wear-resistant and gentle on the antagonist. In contrast, glass–ceramics are more abrasive to enamel.

Background The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of material and occlusal preparation design on the internal fit and marginal gap of endocrowns made of Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and lithium disilicate. Methods 32 endocrowns were fabricated on prepared mandibular molars and divided into two groups (n = 16) according to the material. Group L: lithium disilicate and Group P: PEEK. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 8) according to the occlusal preparation design: full occlusal coverage (LF and PF) and partial occlusal coverage (LP and PP). Samples were analyzed using microcomputed tomography (µCT) with a voxel size of 6 μm to evaluate internal fit, and an optical microscope was used to evaluate the marginal gap. Data were collected, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Numerical data were described as mean and standard deviation and compared using the ANOVA test. The level of significance was set at α P ≤ 0.05. Results All groups’ internal fit and marginal gaps values were within the acceptable clinical range. However, the lithium disilicates group recorded statistically significantly higher mean internal gap values than the PEEK groups. Regardless of the material, the difference between the two occlusal designs was not statistically significant in both internal fit and marginal gap records. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, PEEK endocrown restorations revealed better internal fit and marginal gap than lithium disilicate endocrown restorations. The marginal and internal fit of both lithium disilicate and PEEK endocrown restorations were within the clinically acceptable range. The occlusal preparation design had no influence on the internal fit and marginal gap of the endocrown restoration.