The aim of this report is to (i) review the current literature on the status of root filled teeth, (ii) analyse the most important factors in decision-making, (iii) discuss the current restorative concepts, and (iv) classify both the evidence and clinical practice in a way that seeks to be clear, understandable and helpful for clinicians. Restoration of root filled teeth represents a challenge for the clinician and remains a controversial subject. The guidelines describe a new classification that is drawn from evidence presented in the literature and also from clinical expertise-based reviews. It describes five categories of teeth.

Currently, the availability of a wide variety of universal adhesives makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the correct system for specific bonding situations to dentin substrate. This study aimed to determine whether there are any alternative techniques or additional strategies available to enhance the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Two reviewers executed a literature search up to September 2020 in four electronic databases: PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. Only in vitro studies that reported the dentin bond strength of universal adhesives using additional strategies were included. An analysis was carried out using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed according to the parameters of a previous systematic. A total of 5671 potentially relevant studies were identified. After title and abstract examination, 74 studies remained in systematic review. From these, a total of 61 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin was improved by the use of one of the following techniques: Previous application of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) inhibitors (p < 0.001), prolonged application time (p = 0.007), scrubbing technique (p < 0.001), selective dentin etching (p < 0.001), non-atmospheric plasma (p = 0.01), ethanol-wet bonding (p < 0.01), prolonged blowing time (p = 0.02), multiple layer application (p = 0.005), prolonged curing time (p = 0.006), and hydrophobic layer coating (p < 0.001). On the other hand, the use of a shortened application time (p = 0.006), and dentin desensitizers (p = 0.01) impaired the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin. Most of the analyses performed showed a high heterogenicity. The in vitro evidence suggests that the application of universal adhesives using some alternative techniques or additional strategies may be beneficial for improving their bonding performance to dentin. This research received no external funding. Considering that this systematic review was carried out only with in vitro studies, registration was not performed.

The preparation, cementation and finishing procedures are considered key factors for the long-term success of the indirect composite restorations.

Immediate dentin sealing (IDS) involves applying an adhesive system to dentin directly after tooth preparation, before impression. This was considered an alternate to delayed dentin sealing (DDS), a technique in which hybridization is performed following the provisional phase and just before the indirect restoration luting procedure. This study aimed to compare the bond strength of restorations to dentin of the IDS and the DDS techniques throughout a systematic review and meta-analysis. The following PICOS framework was used: population, indirect restorations; intervention, IDS; control, DDS; outcomes, bond strength; and study design, in vitro studies. PubMed (MedLine), The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, and Embase were screened up to January 2022 by two reviewers (L.H. and R.B.). In vitro papers studying the bond strength to human dentin of the IDS technique compared to the DDS technique were considered. Meta-analyses were carried out by using a software program (Review Manager v5.4.1; The Cochrane Collaboration). Comparisons were made by considering the adhesive used for bonding (two-step etch-and-rinse, three step etch-and-rinse, one-step self-etch, two-step self-etch, and universal adhesives). A total of 3717 papers were retrieved in all databases. After full-text assessment, 22 potentially eligible studies were examined for qualitative analysis, leaving a total of 21 articles for the meta-analysis. For the immediate bond strength, regardless of the adhesive strategy used, the IDS technique improved the bond strength of restorations to the dentin (p < 0.001). Taking into account the subgroup analysis, it seems that the use of the IDS technique with a two-step etch-and-rinse or a one-step self-etch adhesive system does not represent any advantage over the DDS technique (p = 0.07, p = 0.15). On the other hand, for the aged bond strength, regardless of the adhesive strategy used, the IDS technique improved the bond strength of restorations to the dentin (p = 0.001). The subgroups analysis shows that this improvement is observed only when a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (p < 0.001) or when a combination of an adhesive system plus a layer of flowable resin (p = 0.01) is used. The in vitro evidence suggests that the use of the IDS technique improves the bond strength of dentin to resin-based restorations regardless of the adhesive strategy used. The use of a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system or the combination of an adhesive system plus a layer of flowable resin seems to considerably enhance the bond strength in the long term.

This position statement on the restoration of root filled teeth represents the consensus of an expert committee, convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE). Current clinical and scientific evidence, as well as the expertise of the committee, have been used to develop this statement. The aim is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based principles for decision‐making on the choice of restoration following the completion of root canal treatment. By discussing the evidence in relation to key topics regarding post‐endodontic restoration, a series of clinical recommendations are made. The scientific basis of the recommendations made in this paper can be found in a recently published review article (Bhuva et al. 2021, International Endodontic Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13438). It is the intention of the committee to update this statement as further evidence emerges.