With the increased demand for natural-looking restorations, direct resin bonding is performed to conservatively and aesthetically restore posterior teeth. In the past our.

Twenty-five years after their inception, posterior composites remain unpredictable. In comparison to amalgam restorations, posterior composites show significantly higher failure rates, are more.

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed many issues related to communicating with our patients prior to case presentation (Dentistry Today, January.

Posterior composite dentistry has become a well-accepted treatment that many practitioners provide. Proper bonding techniques combined with the superior materials that are now.

Minimally invasive restorative dentistry has been described as the management of caries with a biological approach, rather than a traditional (surgical) operative approach;1.

The advent of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has provided dentists with an expeditious and cost-effective means to provide full-and partial-coverage restorations.

Composite resin shrinkage is the cause of frequent class II open contacts. The scope of this problem is exemplified by observing the amazing.

Restoring a class II preparation with composite resin can be challenging.1 Open contacts, poor anatomical contour, and an inadequate marginal seal are just.

Restorative options are often limited to the scope of the restoration and the confidence the dentist has in his or her restorative choices..

Advances in adhesive dentistry combined with new developments in composite materials offer an option for patients who demand durable, aesthetic posterior direct restorations..