## 4 Discussion
### Tooth Regional Differences in Resin Material Criteria  
Our data indicate that dentists apply distinct selection criteria based on the anatomical location of the restoration, a finding that aligns with previous work by [PERSON] et al. (2021) who reported significant variation in restorative approaches between anterior and posterior regions due to differences in esthetic expectations and functional demands [69]. In this study, esthetic attributes, such as transparency, opacity, and shade-matching, were prioritized for anterior restorations, where visual integration with the surrounding dentition is essential. Conversely, posterior restorations were more strongly associated with the prioritization of mechanical properties, including wear resistance, compressive strength, and fracture toughness, due to their exposure to higher occlusal forces. These results correspond to findings elsewhere where it is emphasized that the selection of posterior restorative materials is predominantly influenced by their ability to withstand long-term functional stress rather than their esthetic qualities [70]. Similarly, it was highlighted that the anatomical region plays a decisive role in material selection, as anterior restorations demand superior optical properties and polishability, whereas posterior restorations require enhanced strength, marginal integrity, and low wear [16]. Taken together, these findings suggest that clinicians adapt their material selection strategies in response to the specific biomechanical and esthetic requirements of the restoration site, thereby reinforcing the importance of site-specific material knowledge in clinical decision-making [71].  
Moreover, less experienced dentists in this study placed greater emphasis on anatomical features and optical properties, particularly in anterior restorations, highlighting a focus on visual accuracy and surface morphology. In contrast, clinicians with more than five years of experience preferred specialized anterior composites, reflecting a shift toward advanced materials with superior esthetic integration, polishability, and long-term performance. This aligns with evidence that clinical expertise is associated with more sophisticated techniques and a broader understanding of material behavior in esthetically demanding cases [20,21]. Recent studies also report that the long-term success of anterior restorations in cases of localized wear is more closely linked to the use of high-performance materials and tailored protocols, which are typically employed by experienced clinicians [72]. Furthermore, the increasing adoption of chairside CAD/CAM technology, customized resin composites, and emerging 3D-printed resin-based materials supports the notion that advanced restorative options are more commonly utilized by seasoned practitioners [73]. In particular, 3D-printed resin-based composites have recently been shown to be viable for permanent indirect restorations, offering mechanical properties, marginal adaptation, and esthetic outcomes comparable to traditional CAD/CAM blocks [73, 74, 75]. These findings indicate that greater clinical experience may contribute to more informed material selection, enabling durable and aesthetically precise anterior restorations. A more detailed exploration of these emerging materials and technologies would be better suited to a separate article specifically addressing advances in restorative dentistry.