B-Guide System: Improving the Predictability of Complete-Arch Implant and Prosthetic Placement Using Fixed Prosthesis Guides.

Objective: Computer-aided implant placement (CAIP) offers improved accuracy and reduced invasiveness. However, traditional static CAIP (sCAIP) protocols for complete-arch restorations often involve multiple guides and clinical steps, increasing the risk of soft tissue trauma and procedural complexity. This article introduces the B-guide technique, which integrates implant placement and interim prosthesis delivery into a single device to simplify the procedure and minimize tissue damage.

Mounting digital casts on a virtual articulator by using two-dimensional facial photographs with a facebow: A technique.

This technique uses 3 or 4 two-dimensional (2D) photographs, including a frontal headshot with a facebow and lip retractors, a profile headshot with a facebow and lip retractors on the right or left side, and a frontal headshot with a facebow during maximum smile without retractors. These 2D photographs are used to digitally mount casts on a virtual articulator.

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.

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.

Conservative restoration of the worn dentition - the anatomically driven direct approach (ADA).

The treatment or management of tooth wear with composite resins can be challenging because significant alterations in the patient's occlusion are usually required. Comprehensive approaches include the use of facebows, articulator-mounted casts, laboratory-made wax-ups, and silicone indexes to deliver the restorations. Even though this sequence of steps is recommended, in many cases it is not applied.

Clinical decisions for anterior restorations: the concept of restorative volume.

Unlabelled: The choice of the most appropriate restoration for anterior teeth is often a difficult decision. Numerous clinical and technical factors play an important role in selecting the treatment option that best suits the patient and the restorative team. Experienced clinicians have developed decision processes that are often more complex than may seem.

Co-existence of crowns and veneers in the anterior dentition: case report.

Crowns and veneers provide distinct treatment strategies with different outcomes in terms of tissue conservation, periodontal distress and esthetic result. It is not always clear where a crown or veneer is indicated, but in the last two decades, adhesive technology, conservative approaches and esthetic demands have increased clinical indications for porcelain veneers in restorative dentistry. A combination of veneers and crowns may be required, especially in the anterior region.