## 3 Results
### Selection of Resin Materials  
The selection criteria for resin materials in anterior and posterior restorations highlight differences in decision-making factors between these two types of restorations (Figure 2). The results show that anatomical features of the restoration were the most frequently cited criterion for both anterior (54.0%) and posterior (55.2%) restorations. More specifically, for anterior restorations, transparency and opacity of neighboring teeth (56.3%) and color of neighboring teeth (50.6%) were highly influential factors, reflecting the emphasis on esthetics in anterior regions. Conversely, these factors were less frequently considered for posterior restorations, with color being relevant for only 28.7% of cases. Moreover, the interdental space was a more significant factor in posterior restorations (27.6%) than in anterior ones (16.1%), likely due to the need for strong contact points and structural stability in posterior occlusion. Notably, a lack of specific selection criteria was more common in posterior restorations (27.6%) compared to anterior restorations (6.9%), indicating that dentists may adopt a more flexible approach when selecting materials for posterior teeth. Finally, a distinctive finding is that special anterior resins were used by 36.8% of dentists for anterior restorations, reporting on the demand for highly esthetic and technique-sensitive materials in the visible esthetic dental zone. This factor was not relevant for posterior restorations, where other material properties such as durability and resistance to occlusal forces likely play a more dominant role.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **N** & **\%** \\ \hline Familiarity with specifications for & Yes & 55 & 71.4\% \\ dental resin restorative materials & No & 22 & 28.6\% \\ \hline Importance of resin restorative & Very high & 28 & 32.2\% \\ material compliance with & High & 47 & 54.0\% \\ specifications & Moderate & 12 & 13.8\% \\ \hline  & Biocompatibility & 21 & 25.9\% \\ \cline{2-4} Features priority when choosing & Photopolymerization & 13 & 16.0\% \\ resin restorative materials & Bending strength & 28 & 34.6\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Water absorbency, & 19 & 23.5\% \\  & solubility, etc. & 4 & 4.9\% \\ \hline  & Certainly yes & 4 & 54.9\% \\ \cline{2-4} Green practice but falls slightly & It depends on the & & \\ short of some of the ISO & & & \\ specifications & No, for me ISO standards & & \\  & are the most important & 33 & 40.2\% \\  & selection criterion & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Familiarity with specifications and features.  
For extensive immediate esthetic restorations of posterior teeth, the majority of respondents (75.9%) selected packable composite resin as their material of choice, reflecting its widespread acceptance for posterior restorations due to its mechanical properties, wear resistance, and ability to provide esthetic results. The high prevalence of this choice aligns with modern restorative trends that favor composite resins over traditional materials such as amalgam (4.6%). Bulk-fill resin was chosen by 34.5% of practitioners, indicating a substantial preference for materials that allow for more efficient placement techniques while maintaining sufficient strength for posterior load-bearing areas [62]. Bulk-fill resins are known for their reduced polymerization shrinkage and improved depth of cure, making them a practical alternative to traditional layering techniques [63; 64]. A smaller proportion (16.1%) opted for flowable composites, which are typically used as liners or in combination with other restorative materials rather than as a standalone material for extensive restorations. The use of glass ionomer cement was minimal (5.7%), likely due to its lower wear resistance and mechanical strength, making it less suitable for high-stress posterior restorations [65].