Clinical guidelines for posterior restorations based on Coverage, Adhesion, Resistance, Esthetics, and Subgingival management. The CARES concept: Part III ­ subgingival margins, "ferrule" design, and posts in severely compromised teeth

Despite the clear advances regarding the restoration of posterior teeth, especially with the minimally invasive approach, there are still several topics where the available scientific evidence does not provide clear answers in terms of clinical decisions. The indications, differences, and clinical protocols for partial adhesive restorations (onlays, overlays, and endocrowns) and resistance form restorations (full-contour resistive crowns) were presented in Parts I and II of the present article series based on Coverage of susceptible cusps, Adhesion advantages and limitations, Resistance forms to be implemented, Esthetic concerns, and Subgingival management - the CARES concept. Now, in Part III, the focus is on different approaches of managing subgingival areas, gaining "ferrule" design, and the role of posts on the restorability strategies of severely compromised teeth.

Clinical guidelines for posterior restorations based on Coverage, Adhesion, Resistance, Esthetics, and Subgingival management. The CARES concept: Part II - full-contour resistive crowns with vertical preparation.

Restoration of posterior teeth with different extents of tissue loss has been a matter of debate in the literature. There are several recommendations and guidelines on when, how, and why to perform adhesive restorations (onlays, overlays, and endocrowns) or resistance form restorations (full-contour resistive crowns). In Part I of this three-part article series, the authors focused on adhesive partial restorations. In that article, the evidence was extensively described, and a clinically reasonable thought process was suggested for these decisions based on Coverage of susceptible cusps, Adhesion advantages and limitations, Resistance forms to be implemented, Esthetic concerns, and Subgingival management - the CARES concept. Now, in Part II, the focus is on clinical decisions for full-contour resistive crowns regarding their indications based on remaining tooth structure, materials, and different preparation designs as well as the particularities of vertical marginal preparations, perio-restorative considerations, and esthetic challenges.

Clinical guidelines for posterior restorations based on Coverage, Adhesion, Resistance, Esthetics, and Subgingival management. The CARES concept: Part I ­ partial adhesive restorations

Important changes have occurred over the last decades in the clinical application of the strategies for posterior restorations - from amalgam to composites in direct restorations and from traditional resistance form crowns to adhesive partial restorations such as onlays. Despite much evidence available for these advances, there are still very few established guidelines for common clinical questions: When does an indirect restoration present a clinical advantage over a direct one? When should one perform adhesive cusp coverage such as an onlay? When to implement resistance form designs in adhesive restorations? Which conditions create limitations for adhesion so that a resistance form preparation with a stiffer material such as a traditional crown might be more appropriate? In order to provide clinical guidelines, the present authors consider five parameters to support and clarify decisions - Coverage of cusps, Adhesion advantages and limitations, Resistance forms to be implemented, Esthetic concerns, and Subgingival management - the CARES concept. In Part I of this three-part review article, the focus is on clinical decisions for partial adhesive restorations regarding indications for direct versus indirect materials as well as the need for cusp coverage and/or resistance form preparations based on remaining tooth structure and esthetics.

Effective Protocol for Daily High-quality Direct Posterior Composite Restorations. The Interdental Anatomy of the Class-2 Composite Restoration.

The importance of the interdental anatomy of a class-2 direct composite restoration is one of the most underestimated topics in direct posterior composite restorations. The proximal emergence profile of the restoration and the contact area should be designed to maximize arch continuity and to minimize food impaction. Other restorative criteria that must be fulfilled are marginal adaptation compatible with the dental and periodontal integrity, and geometry of the marginal ridge compatible with the mechanical integrity of the restoration under load. Shortcomings will result in masticatory discomfort, caries, periodontal problems and undesired movement of teeth. In vitro and in vivo studies showed that the use a contoured sectional metal matrix band with a separation clamp results in the tightest contact point. However, this matrix system also has shortcomings and does not give the expected result in all class-2 cavities. The variation in depth, width of the box, distance between the cervical cavity margin and the adjacent tooth requires customization of the interproximal space. In order to realize this, sectional matrix bands with several profiles of curvature, variation of wedges and separation clamps, and the use of teflon tape are required. In addition, dentists should follow a protocol allowing them to build a proximal composite surface that fulfills the required restorative criteria. Pre-wedging, space evaluation, interproximal clearance, correct selection, positioning and stabilization of the matrix band are important steps in this protocol.