ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 1/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
56HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Correspondence to: Giovanni Tommaso Rocca
Department of Cariology and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, 19 Rue, Barthélémy Menn, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 022.3794100; Fax: 022.3794102
Crown and post-free adhesive
restorations for endodontically
treated posterior teeth: from direct
composite to endocrowns
Giovanni Tommaso Rocca, DMD
Senior Assistant, Division of Cariology and Endodontology,
School of Dentistry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Ivo Krejci, Prof. DMD
Chairman, Division of Cariology and Endodontology,
School of Dentistry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
![Page 2: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 2/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
157THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Abstract
Coronal rehabilitation of endodontically
treated posterior teeth is still a controver-sial issue. Although the classical crown
supported by radicular metal posts re-
mains widely spread in dentistry, its in-
vasiveness has been largely criticized.
New materials and therapeutic options
based entirely on adhesion are now-
adays available. They allow perform-
ing a more conservative, faster and less
expensive dental treatment. All clinicalcases presented in this paper are solved
by using these modern techniques, from
direct composite restorations to indirect
endocrowns.
(Eur J Esthet Dent 2013;8:156–179)
157THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
![Page 3: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 3/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
58HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Introduction
Endodontically treated teeth (ETT) are
more prone to fracture.1
One of the keyreasons for this increased weakness is
the lack of tooth substance following the
pathological process and endodontic
treatment of the tooth in question. This
biomechanical alteration inflicts a nega-
tive impact on the long-term prognosis
of the tooth.2,3 Therefore, when con-
sidering the restoration of devitalized
teeth, dental materials should be able
to replace the loss of tooth substance in
order to ensure mechanical and func-
tional properties, esthetics and coronal
seal.
Traditionally this function is fulfilled
by a porcelain fused to metal (PFM) or
a full-ceramic crown, which is usually
cemented onto a core fixed to the root
by an endodontic post. Although some
long-term retrospective studies have
demonstrated its good reliability,4,5 this
kind of approach may be invasive both
in the crown and in the root. In case of
failure, the invasive nature of such pro-
cedures often excludes the possibility of
a re-intervention due to the poor quantity
of the remaining dental tissues; in addi-
tion, it exposes the tooth to a higher risk
of irreversible fractures.
Moreover, the fabrication of a crown
may involve many technical steps
(crown lengthening, post cementation,
core fabrication and temporary crown),which increase the time and cost of treat-
ment. All these intermediary stages may
also favor bacterial infiltration and cause
endodontic re-infection. However, in the
past, crowning of devitalized teeth was
considered a must to protect the remain-
ing tooth substance. Tooth-destructive
fricative elements such as prefabricat-
ed metallic posts have been widely and
wrongly suggested in presence of an ex-
tensive tissue loss, not only to retain thecrown but also to recover the stiffness of
the tooth. Contrary to this preconceived
idea, it is largely proved today that these
elements do not reinforce the tooth but
contribute to its weakness.6
During the last 30 years, the devel-
opment of the adhesive philosophy in
dentistry and the high bonding perfor-
mances achieved by modern adhesive
systems have gradually changed the
dogma “devitalized tooth = crowned
tooth” and many classical indications for
a crown restoration are nowadays ques-
tioned.7 Modern clinical procedures to
restore ETT are rather based on the prin-
ciples of the minimally invasive dentis-
try, which attempts to conserve sound
tissues. This kind of conservative den-
tistry is accomplished by using adhe-
sive techniques, as adhesion ensures
sufficient material retention without the
need of aggressive macroretentive tech-
niques. Consequently, restoration of de-
vitalized teeth follows in many cases the
same principles as the restoration of vi-
tal teeth.
The aim of this article is to show a
modern therapeutic approach based
entirely on adhesive dentistry. The fab-
rication of direct and indirect adhesive
restorations on ETT is illustrated in some
representative clinical cases. A new ra-tionale is also presented to help the op-
erator in choosing the correct adhesive
restoration according to the tooth cav-
ity configuration and the tooth’s esthetic
needs.
![Page 4: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 4/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
159THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Treatment plan
The choice of the therapeutic option
when restoring a devitalized tooth is
based on several factors. Certain factors
such as the geometry of the tooth cavity,
the tooth localization in the mouth, as
well as esthetics, are essential in estab-
lishing objective and simple guidelines.
Others, like the presence of parafunc-
tions in the occlusal context, the age of
the tooth and its endodontic/periodontal
prognosis, and the financial aspects are
important factors but should be consid-
ered separately as special single cases.
Loss of substance
(tooth cavity configuration)
The major changes in the biomechan-ics of an ETT are caused by the loss
of tissue due to the previous pathology
(caries, fracture, cavity excavation), to
the endodontic treatment (access cav-
ity, root canal shaping) and to some
invasive restorative procedures (post
placement, crown fabrication).8 All
these factors may contribute to a con-
sistent removal of coronal and radicular
tissues, which enhances the weakness
and the risk of fracture of an EET. In the
coronal part of the tooth, a few partic-
ular cavity configurations seem to be
more at risk. Several in vitro studies9-12
show that the conservation of the mar-
ginal ridges is a fundamental factor in
limiting abnormal cuspal deflection and
breakdown. Thus, an occlusal (O) cav-
ity and a mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD)
cavity are on the opposite side of a hy-
pothetical safety scale (Fig 1). Further-
more, the loss of the parapulpal dentin
– the dentin above and near the pulp
chamber – as a natural consequence
of an endodontic treatment is another
major weakening factor.10,11 As a con-
sequence, the deepest MOD cavitieson an ETT should be considered as the
worst cavities in terms of fracture risk. In
those cases, scientific literature agrees
that a cuspal coverage of the tooth has
to be planned in order to avoid extreme
flexure of the cusps and balance the oc-
clusal forces (Figs 2a and 2b).
Fig 1 The risk of fracture of an endodontically treated tooth is directly related to the quantity of tissues
lost and to the specific cavity configuration.
![Page 5: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 5/24
60HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
CLINICAL RESEARCH
When considering sound coronal tis-
sues available for adhesion in a devi-
talized tooth, remaining walls must be
sound, free of fissures and at least 1 mmwide to be considered as safe (Fig 3).
That estimation should be done during
the preliminary steps of the endodontic
phase when the cavity is first cleaned
and the pulpal tissue is removed. Fis-
sured and thin cavity walls should be
detected before the build-up of the pre-
endodontic composite resin reconstruc-
tion, as a part of this resin is often left in
place later as a base for the definitive
restoration.
The tooth type
(molars vs premolars)
The anatomical and physiological dif-
ferences between molars and premo-
lars may be crucial when choosing the
therapeutic option. First, molars are
larger than premolars and they have a
larger pulp chamber. Therefore, they
have more surface available for adhe-
sive procedures than premolars. When
a considerable amount of tissue is lost,
this feature is of high importance. More-
over, molars and premolars are usually
submitted to a different set of loads. In a
normal occlusal context – class I molar,
canine lateral guidance, incisors anter-
ior guidance – posterior teeth (molars
and premolars) are more subjected to
axial forces while anterior teeth (caninesand incisors) are more exposed to shear
forces. Despite this ideal situation, more
often canine lateral guidance is replaced
by a group function where premolars
participate in lateral movements. There-
fore, premolars’ cusps are subjected
to a more complex set of forces that is
formed by either axial and shear loads
and that could be potentially harmful.
Thus, in most cases molars can be re-
stored by relying solely on adhesion whilepremolars could ask for a post place-
ment in case of scarce residual tooth
structure. Practical guidelines derived
from clinical experience for the evalua-
tion of the remaining sound tissues and
indications for a post placement have
been mentioned previously.3,10
The esthetic factor
Esthetic needs of ETT are critical for the
cavity preparation and for the material
selection. Those needs are established
imperatively at the beginning of the first
appointment. The buccal visibility of the
treated tooth inside the “smile space”
(the virtual space between the upper and
lower lips during full smiling of the pa-
tient) implies high esthetic needs (Fig 4).
Whenever the restoration margins invade
this space, in case of cuspal coverage
for example, a homogeneous transition
between the restoration and the tooth
could present a hard esthetic challenge.
Three solutions are offered to the oper-
ator. First, buccal margins of the restor-
ation can be placed in the cervical third
of the crown, close to the gingival line
in order to place the transition in a hid-
den zone. This “crown-like” buccal mar-
gin yields appealing esthetic results but
is invasive in nature (Fig 5d). As a moreconservative alternative – but more chal-
lenging from an esthetic point of view –
buccal margins can be left in the middle
third of the crown, at a distance of 2 to
3 mm from the occlusion plane (Fig 5c).
In that case a large amount of enamel
and dentin is saved but the esthetic in-
![Page 6: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 6/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
161THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 2a and 2b Ra-
tionale for the choice
of the proper thera-
peutic option for ETT.
It is important to un-derline the schemat-
ic aspect of these
guidelines: thickness
of remaining walls,
dimension of the cav-
ity and above all the
occlusal context can
influence the thera-
peutic choice.
Fig 3 A long vertical fissure in the distal marginal
ridge is clearly visible after the preparation of this
3.6. This wall has to be included in the future res-
toration as it cannot be considered as safe. The
geometry of the cavity changes from MO to MOD.
Fig 4 The “smile space”. In some cases, poster-
ior teeth should be considered like anterior ones in
terms of esthetic needs.
cavity
Class I
Class II
MO/OD
cuspal coverage
no*
* In safe occlusal context
suggested restoration
Direct composite
Direct composite
Indirect restoration
endocrown
endocrown
post+core
+PFM
Class II
MOD
premolars molars
cavity cuspal coveragesuggested restoration
yes
![Page 7: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 7/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
62HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
tegration of the restoration is more chal-
lenging. An attractive possibility is to
place the visible margins in the incisal
third of the buccal cusp, at just 1.5 mm
from the occlusion (Fig 5b) conserving
the buccal cusp almost entirely. The indi-
cated option, although still experimental
and tested just only on vital teeth,11,12 is
very interesting as it combines minimal
invasive dentistry and esthetics. In the
case where a part of the buccal cusp is
envisioned to be left in place, conforming
to this type of configuration, and there is
evidence of dentin discolorations, an in-
ternal coronal bleaching could be indi-
cated before the placement of the final
restoration (Fig 10c).
Clinical cases
Class I (4-wall cavity)
In this cavity configuration, the EET pre-
sents a wide and deep occlusal cavity
inserted in 4 remaining walls. If these
walls are sound and thick enough, this
cavity is considered the safest in terms
of fracture risk. In a well known study
Reeh et al9 have measured a loss of
tooth stiffness of about 20% associ-
ated to an occlusal endodontic access
cavity, compared to a 63% for a MOD
endodontic cavity. Later, other labora-
tory tests10,11,13 have confirmed this
hypothesis. Few studies exist in litera-
ture describing the clinical effective-
ness of direct composite resin for Class
I cavities in EET. The scientific opinion
is generally positive towards this kind
of restoration even if the results of the
clinical trials are frequently confounded
either with other kind of cavities insidethe wider category of direct composite
resins13,14 or with other materials like
amalgams within the group of Direct
Restorations.15
The Class I case presented is an en-
dodontically treated maxillary first molar
(Figs 6a to 6c). Once the provisional res-
Fig 5 Guidelines for full occlusal coverage. Palatal and lingual cusps can be simply reduced by 2 to
3 mm with a butt-joint (A). On the contrary, for buccal cusps there are 3 options: (B) The ultra-conservativebuccal cusp coverage (1.5 mm); (C) The conventional buccal cusp coverage (2–3 mm); (D) The full buc-
cal cusp coverage.
palatal/
lingual
cusp
buccal
cusp
Min 2 mm
A
B
C
D
![Page 8: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 8/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
163THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 6a Occlusal view of the Class I cavity on the
maxillary first molar. The cavity is cleaned and iso-
lated.
Fig 6b A hybrid composite resin is gradually in-
serted into the cavity. Each layer is light-cured for
at least 40 s.
Fig 6c Final view of the direct composite restor-
ation.
toration is removed, the cavity is isolated
with a rubber dam and adhesively treat-
ed with a self-etch or an etch-and-rinse
adhesive system (Table 1). Then, smallamounts of hybrid composite resin are
directly inserted in the cavity and polym-
erized. The aim is to fill the cavity and
limit the resin polymerization shrinkage.
The highest configuration factor (C fac-
tor) of this kind of cavity imposes that
strategy. To that purpose, the composite
resin is progressively stratified into the
cavity by applying 2 to 3 mm oblique in-
crements. Each layer is polymerized for
40 seconds with the LED lamp as close
to the surface of the resin as possible.
Then, the restoration is finished and pol-
ished with silicone points and fine abra-
sive disks. A final touch of polymerization
under glycerin gel avoids any oxygen-
inhibition layers. Finally, the rubber-dam
is removed and the occlusion checked,
and adjusted if necessary.
Class II MO/OD (3-wall cavity)
In this kind of 3-wall cavity configura-
tion, the mesial or distal remaining mar-
ginal ridge protects the tooth from cata-
strophic mesio-distal fractures. In the
past, several studies have shown the
protective role performed by a sound
and tight marginal “third wall”. Reeh et
al9 found that the loss of tooth stiffness
in these kinds of cavities is about 45%
compared to a 63% of an MOD cavity.Panitvisai et al13 found that the bucco-
lingual cuspal movement in the 3 walls of
MO cavities is about 7.5 mm instead of
16.5 mm observed in 2-wall MOD cavi-
ties. These results was also confirmed
by Gonzalez-Lopez et al11 who showed
that removal of both marginal ridges in
![Page 9: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 9/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
64HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Table 1 Adhesive principles
Dentin
Self-etch Etch-and-
System rinse System
Enamel Composite Silica-based
Ceramic
Conditioning
Self-etching
primer
(10 sec and dry)
Ortophosphoric
acid
(10 sec)
Ortophos-
phoric acid
(40 sec)
Sandblasting
with Al3O2
(27 to 50 mm)
Hydrofluoric
acid (following
manufacturer
instructions)
Priming
Primer solution
(10 sec and
dry)
Organic silane
(60 sec and
dry)
Organic silane
(60 sec and
dry)
BondingBonding resin
(10 sec and dry)
Bonding resin
(10 sec and
dry)
Bonding resin
(10 sec and
dry)
Bonding resin
(10 sec and
dry)
Bonding resin
(10 sec and
dry)
devitalized premolars led to a dramatic
increase in cuspal deflection, above all
under extreme loads (from about 10 mm
for a MO cavity to 56 mm for a MOD
cavity under 100 N load and from about
14 mm to 114 mm respectively under
150 N load). Recently, Salameh et al16
found that MO cavities in endodonti-
cally treated molars restored by direct
composite resins demonstrate a fracture
resistance superior to MOD cavities,
with and without fiber posts. However,
in another similar study on devitalized
premolars, Sorrentino et al17 found no
differences in fracture strength between
3- and 2-wall cavities. An in vitro study18
has focused on the adequate thickness
of this remaining marginal ridge. Resultsof this study prove that sound marginal
walls of a thickness superior to 1 mm in
devitalized premolars restored by direct
composite resins have fracture strength
similar to that of intact teeth.
The clinical relevance of all this labora-
tory research is that under the aforemen-
tioned conditions and in the absence of
parafunctional stresses, a full occlusal
coverage in this type of cavity configu-
ration can be avoided. Hence, the pres-
ervation of the lingual and buccal cusps
ensures a more conservative and es-
thetic approach. Furthermore, frequently
3-wall cavities without cuspal coverage
can be easily restored with composite
resins using a direct technique.
Direct technique
Simple 3-wall cavities in ETT can be re-
stored by direct composite resins. The
case presented in this paper is a devi-
talized maxillary first molar with a medi-
um/large MO cavity (Figs 7a to 7e). The
presence of a thick and sound distal wallallows for the entire conservation of the
buccal and palatal cups and avoids a
further loss of substance. A radiograph-
ic examination must always confirm the
clinical diagnosis (Fig 7b). From an es-
thetic point of view, the possibility to con-
serve the buccal wall almost entirely is
![Page 10: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 10/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
165THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 7a Initial view of the endodontically treated
first molar. The cavity is cleaned and put under rub-
ber dam isolation. The application of a liquid light-
curing rubber dam in the interproximal space helpsto isolate the operatory field.
Fig 7b On the bite-wing radiograph, the thickness
of the remaining distal wall of the 2.6 is checked.
Fig 7c After the application of the adhesive sys-
tem, the restorative hybrid composite resin is strati-
fied into the cavity, starting from the interproximal
mesial wall in order to transform the Class II cavity
into a Class I cavity. The use of a transparent shade
to fill the pulp chamber in the first 2 mm facilitates
the detection of the root canals in case of endodon-
tic re-intervention.
Fig 7d Once removed the metal matrix the enam-
el composite layer can be sculpted easily.
a great advantage. Despite large cavity
dimensions, a direct composite resin is
chosen to restore this molar instead of
an indirect solution. This choice is above
all dictated by a simple clinical/practical
feasibility more than future restoration’s
dimensions. Once the adhesive system is
applied, composite resin is stratified into
the cavity by applying 2 to 3 mm oblique
increments, starting from the interproxi-
mal mesial wall in order to transform the
Class II cavity in a Class I cavity. Details
![Page 11: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 11/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
66HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
concerning the technical procedures for
direct composite have been already de-
scribed previously for Class I (Fig 6).
Indirect technique
Indirect restorations are a good alter-
native to direct composite resins in
the case of large 3 wall cavities, espe-
cially in situations when clinical feasi-
bility becomes too complex for a direct
technique. Such a case is illustrated in
Figs 8a to 8o, where a maxillary second
premolar presents with a large occlus-al-distal-palatal (ODP) cavity including
sub-gingival distal margins. During the
first appointment, the indirect technique
allows the relocation of the intracrevicu-
lar margins, and the ideal interproximal
and occlusal anatomy is achieved later
with the lab-made restoration.
Fig 7e Final view of the direct composite restoration.
By programming two appointments,
a conventional indirect composite
technique is thus accomplished. Dur-
ing the first appointment,19 the cavity
is cut under local anesthesia. Once the
cavity is properly isolated an adhesive
system is applied on whole dentin and
on the distal thin subgingival portions of
enamel margins and light cured. Next
a thin composite resin layer is applied
on dentin and light cured. The goal is
to fill the pulp chamber, cover all the
dentin and to arrive at an ideal geom-etry of the cavity: correct taper, minimal
undercuts, cervical margins relocated
supragingivally and adequate interoc-
clusal space. For that purpose, a low
shrinking hybrid composite resin is
suitable. Finishing the enamel margins
with fine diamonds instruments is the
![Page 12: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 12/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
167THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
last step before impression. The prep-
aration of a small pit in the middle of the
pulp chamber composite and/or flat
distal margins will help the positioningof the restoration during luting (Fig 8d).
After the impressions, a soft compos-
ite resin temporary material (eg, Fer-
mit, Ivoclar Vivadent) is inserted into
the cavity and light cured without ce-
mentation. Then, the composite resin
workpiece is fabricated in-lab on a cast
model (Fig 8e). During the second clin-
ical session the workpiece is tried in the
mouth. The anatomy, esthetic integra-
tion, interproximal surface contact and
fit of the margins are verified. Next the
internal surface of the indirect compos-
ite resin restoration is adhesively treat-
ed and then left under light protection
(Table 1) (Figs 8f to 8h). The next step
is the adhesive treatment of the cavity
(Table 1) (Figs 8i to 8l). The procedure
is simplified by the presence of enamel
and composite resin only, as there is
no exposed dentin20. A conventional
photopolymerizable hybrid composite
resin is used as luting cement. Before
the insertion into the cavity, this com-
posite resin should be heated up to a
temperature of about 50°C to decrease
its viscosity. Immediately thereafter,
the restoration is inserted into the cav-
ity and is first forced in place manually
and then with the help of ultrasonic en-
ergy. The use of a metallic plugger is
contraindicated when the thickness ofthe restoration is thin because it may
introduce fractures. Excess of luting
composite resin at the margins are re-
moved with a probe and interproximal
floss. A first light polymerization is per-
formed with a high power LED unit 5 s
per surface, which serves to fix the sur-
Fig 8a Palatal view of the upper second premolar
after removal of the provisional restoration. If cavity
margins are largely subgingival, a crown-lengthen-
ing procedure must be planned.
Fig 8b Placing rubber dam is mandatory to fa-
cilitate adhesive techniques. In case of subgingivalmargins, the placement of a metallic matrix and in-
terproximal wedges will displace rubber dam from
deeper margins, making its application easier.
![Page 13: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 13/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
68HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig 8d Before impression enamel is finished. A
flat distal margin will help the positioning of the res-
toration during luting.
Fig 8f Adhesive preparation of the workpiece: the
inner surface is sandblasted with 27–50 microns
Al3O2 particles at a distance of about 5 mm.
Fig 8h Application of a hydrophobic light-curing
bonding resin. The restoration is then put under light
protection.
Fig 8e The indirect composite restoration on the
cast model.
Fig 8g The conditioned surface is successively
“primed’ with an organic silane.
Fig 8c Composite build-up. Whole dentin and thin
subgingival enamel are systematically covered.
![Page 14: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 14/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
169THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 8i Adhesive preparation of the cavity. The
composite layer is sandblasted.
Fig 8j Orthophosphoric acid etching of enamel
margins.
Fig 8l A light-curing bonding resin is applied onto
the entire cavity surface and spread in a very thin
layer with a gentle air jet, without being pre-cured.
Fig 8k Application of silane coupling agent on
composite resin.
Fig 8m The restoration is inserted into the cavity.
A restorative hybrid composite resin is used as lut-
ing cement.
Fig 8n Full polymerization is achieved by light
curing for at least 90 s per surface.
![Page 15: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 15/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
70HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig 8o The luted indirect composite resin restoration.
face of the luting composite resin. Then
full polymerization in contact with the
irradiated surface is achieved by light
curing for at least 90 s per surface. Any
composite resin excess is subsequent-
ly removed with fine diamonds and re-
polished with flexible discs or silicone
points with slight pressure. A layer of
glycerine gel is finally applied over the
entire surface of the restored tooth and
the luting composite resin is cured for
5 s per surface through this gel to elimi-
nate the oxygen inhibition layer on thesurface of the luting composite resin,
if still not polished and removed. Fi-
nally, the rubber dam is removed and
the occlusion is checked. Any abnor-
mal contact in occlusion and during
lateral movements on the restoration is
removed.
Class II MOD (2-wall cavity)
Covering all the cusps by at least 2 to
3 mm is mandatory when 2 or 1 walls
remain in the cavity of an ETT. As stated
before, large and deep MOD cavities
are placed in a hypothetical safety scale
at the “border line” (Fig 1) from which
the danger of severe failures increases
drastically.
Bonded restorations with full occlus-
al coverage or “overlays” are proved
to have a beneficial effect on fracturestrength of ETT compared to simple
MOD restorations.14,22,21 The main rea-
son is that bonded overlays show a
more homogeneous distribution of biting
forces during function. Also, they have
a better cavity configuration in terms of
C factor, which allows lower polymeriza-
![Page 16: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 16/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
171THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
tion shrinkage stresses on marginal ad-
hesive interfaces. Moreover, some stud-
ies show a certain protective effect ofthese restorations against irreversible
fractures.22 However, these results are
in contrast with other in vitro tests where
the occlusal coverage configuration
has no influence on fracture strength
of ETT.21,23 With regard to materials, in
some recent studies14,25 a certain em-
phasis has been made to the fact that
composite resin overlays, due to their
lower Young modulus display better per-formances versus ceramic, absorbing
and minimizing internal stresses.
Endocrowns
Within all bonded indirect restorations,
“overlay restorations on ETT” or “endo-
crowns” represent a particular category.
Fig 9a The esthetic prominence of the devitalized
tooth – the maxillary first premolar – must be primar-
ily checked.
Fig 9c The provisional restoration and the mesio-
distal composite are removed.
Fig 9b Initial view of the treated tooth.
Fig 9d The cuspal coverage during cavity prep-
aration: the palatal cusp is firstly reduced with a
diamond-coated bur.
![Page 17: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 17/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
72HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig 9e The buccal cusp is reduced to 0.5 to 1 mm
over the gingival level (see also Fig 5d). An over-
gingival margin facilitates rubber dam application
during adhesive procedures.
Fig 9f The lab-made glass-ceramic endocrown
(IPS e.max Press, IvoclarVivadent).
Fig 9g Adhesive preparation of the ceramic res-
toration: the inner surface is conditioned with hy-
drofluoric acid following manufacturer instructions.
Then, acid is first aspired trough high speed aspira-
tion and restoration is abundantly rinsed with water
spray.
Fig 9h Complete cleaning of the conditioned sur-
face is achieved by a post-etching cleaning using
orthophosphoric acid with a brushing motion fol-
lowed by immersion in an ultrasonic bath of distilled
water for 5 min. Then restoration is gently dried with
compressed air.
By definition, endocrowns are partialcrowns made out of ceramic or com-
posite resin that are bonded by resin
cements to the devitalized tooth. They
offer a full occlusal coverage and they
take advantage of the pulp chamber
to increase the available adhesive sur-
face. Different materials can be used
to fabricate an endocrown feldsphaticand glass-ceramic, hybrid composite
resin and the newest computer aided
design/computer aided manufacturing
(CAD/CAM) ceramic and composite
resin blocks. Scientific literature is still
uncertain about which material is best
indicated for such restorations. The
![Page 18: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 18/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
173THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 9i A silane coupling agent is applied for 60
s and dried. A thin layer of bonding resin is subse-
quently applied over the silanized surface, without
being pre-cured. Note the typical shiny aspect ofthe inner surface after the bonding resin application.
Fig 9j Adhesive preparation of the premolar cav-
ity is achieved following the same procedure de-
scribed from Figs 8i to 8l.
Fig 9k The light-curing luting composite is inserted into the cavity and spread. High viscosity of conven-
tional hybrid composites can be reduced by pre-heating them outside of the cavity in special ovens and
eventually applying ultrasonic energy directly into the composite luting layer.
![Page 19: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 19/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
74HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig 9l Restoration is initially pushed in place man-
ually and then completely seated with ultrasonic en-
ergy.
Fig 9m Buccal and occlusal view of the glass-
ceramic endocrown.
authors prefer micro-hybrid compos-
ite resins – lab-made or in the form of
CAD/CAM blocks – due to their stress-
absorbing properties and their practical
benefits like the possibility to modify and
repair the surface easily.26 Reinforced
glass-ceramics (eg, IPS e.max Press
and CAD, Ivoclar), may be alternatives
to this concept.
Several in vitro studies have proven
the validity of bonded endocrowns for
molars and premolars7,26-28,30 however,
only few in vivo trials29,30 have been
conducted and they report a good clin-
ical performances for molars. However,
classical treatments like post, core and
crowns must be still kept in considera-
tion for severely damaged premolars,
until further clinical tests could provethe possibility to restore them solely by
endocrowns.
The first case of endocrown present-
ed is a maxillary first premolar with es-
thetic needs (Figs 9a to 9m). Once re-
moved the provisional restoration and
cleaned the tooth, the deep and wide
MOD cavity configuration supports the
full occlusal coverage of this tooth. The
palatal cusp is simply reduced by 2 to
3 mm with a butt-margin (Fig 9d). From
an esthetic point of view, the buccal
margin is placed in the cervical third, 0.5
to 1 mm over the gingival level (Figs 9e
and 5d). The cavity is then isolated and
prepared for an indirect restoration fol-
lowing the same procedures described
before for the case of Fig 8. Regarding
materials, a lithium disilicate reinforced
glass-ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar
Vivadent) is chosen in this case for es-
thetic reasons. It is important to note that
the cavity preparation during the first
appointment and the adhesive surface
treatment of the cavity during the luting
appointment follow the same principlesand procedures for both ceramic and
composite endocrowns. The only differ-
ence is the adhesive treatment of the in-
taglio surface of the workpiece (Table 1
and Figs 9f to 9i) during luting.
The second case of an endocrown
presented is a mandibular first molar
![Page 20: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 20/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
175THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 10a Initial view of the endodontic treated
mandibular first molar. Old and leaked composite
restoration is removed and an endodontic retreat-
ment is programmed.
Fig 10b Image of the wide MOD cavity during the
pre-endodontic composite build-up. The quantity
and quality of remaining sound tissues available for
the definitive restoration is often evaluated duringthis preliminary phase.
Fig 10c After the endodontic retreatment and
before the definitive restoration, one/two internal
bleaching sessions can be performed.
with lower esthetic needs than the pre-
vious maxillary case (Figs 10a to 10g).
That allows a more conservative design
of the endocrown above all in the buc-
cal “esthetic” side, meaning that buccal
cusps like lingual ones can be reduced
just a few millimeters from occlusion
(Figs 10e and 5c). In general, reduc-
tions by at least 2 to 3 mm are recom-
Fig 10d The first molar some weeks after the
bleaching. The tooth is ready to be prepared for the
endocrown restoration.
mended for ceramic and composite
resin restorations. Before the prepar-
ation of the cavity for the endocrown,
one/two sessions of internal bleaching
(sodium perborate and distilled wa-
ter or 3% hydrogen peroxide) may be
planned, in order to reduce the heavy
dental dyschromia, which is clearly vis-
ible on the buccal side.
![Page 21: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 21/24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
76HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig 10f The lab-made composite endocrown.
Fig 10e Details of the cavity preparation. In this
case both buccal and lingual cusps were simply
reduced by 2 to 3 mm (see also Fig 5c).
Fig 10g Final view of the restored molar.
The third case of an endocrown is a
maxillary second premolar with a large
cavity including the mesio-distal inter-
proximal walls and the palatal cusp(Figs 11a to 11e).31 In this kind of large
MODP cavity on premolars, a full occlus-
al coverage is currently recommended.
Consequently, the buccal cusp is entire-
ly reduced and classical post, core and
crown are usually programmed. In that
specific case, a new and experimental
design of endocrown was indeed real-
ized in which the cuspal coverage was
obtained with a minimal invasive reduc-
tion of the thick and sound buccal cusp.
Some modern studies have recently
pointed out that composite resin resto-
rations show enough resistance, even in
a thin layer.16,17 Thus, the buccal cusp is
slightly reduced and restoration margins
are placed in the incisal third at a 1.5 mm
distance from the occlusal plane and
lateral contacts (Figs 11b and 5b). On
the contrary, the pre-endodontic com-
posite resin is abundantly reduced in
the palatal side as well in the interproxi-
mal regions. This “modified” restoration
design (Fig 11d) for endocrowns is par-
ticularly interesting as a good esthetic
can be achieved with a minimal invasive
intervention.
Conclusion
This article illustrates how the principlesof minimally invasive dentistry can be
applied not only to primary restorations,
but to the field of re-dentistry as well,
in particular on non-vital teeth. Weak-
ened endodontically treated posterior
teeth can be restored functionally and
esthetically by direct and indirect adhe-
![Page 22: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 22/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
177THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTR
Fig 11a Initial view of the maxillary second pre-
molar with a large MODP provisional composite res-
toration.
Fig 11c Details of the cavity. A big portion of the
pre-endodontic restoration is conserved. A special
care was put in all the preliminary adhesive proce-
dures to fabricate this resin composite. The fabrica-
tion of a central box into the pulp chamber compos-
ite is essential for a good stability of the restoration
during adhesive cementation.
Fig 11b The ultra conservative reduction of the
buccal cusp is checked in occlusion and during
lateral movements (see also Fig 5b).
Fig 11d Distal view of the lab-made composite
endocrown. Buccal (V) and palatal (P) cusps.
sive techniques, thus avoiding a furthersacrifice of sound tissues for fricative
and macroretentive elements. By rely-
ing on adhesion, radicular posts are no
longer necessary on devitalized molars,
and at the present moment it is difficult
to decide if posts are necessary on pre-
molars and front teeth. If yes, they may
only be considered in the case of ex-treme coronal destruction, without hav-
ing clear scientific evidence on their
necessity and exact indication. If used,
adhesive posts in a minimally invasive
restorative concept do not represent a
macromechanically retentive element.
They serve much more as a glass fiber
V
P
![Page 23: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 23/24
78HE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC DENTISTRY
CLINICAL RESEARCH
reinforcement of a short radicular inlay
that searches to increase adhesive sur-
face within the root canal to increase ad-
hesive retention. Finally, it is important to
note that accurate case selection and
rigorous execution of adhesive proce-
dures are essential for the accomplish-
ment of this full adhesive strategy.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr Nicolas Riz-
calla for the precious help in clinical procedures,
Dominique Vinci (www.vinci.ch), and Marcus Rou-
bain (LDC Lausanne) for the laboratory works and
Izabella Nerushay for the English revision.
Photos copyright
Photos 8a, 8b, and 8o with the courtesy
of Bouillaguet S, Rocca GT. Restaura-
tions coronaries et corono-radiculaires
des dents dépulpées (in: Simon S,
Machtou P, Pertot WJ (eds). Endodon-
tie. Paris: Editions CdP, Wolters Kluwer
France, 2012).
Photos 11a to 11f with the courtesy of
Rocca GT, Krejci I. Restaurations adhé-
sives pour dent dépulpée. L’alternative
au tout couronne. Réalités Cliniques
2011;25–31.
References
1. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically
treated teeth more brittle? J Endod
1992;18:332–335.
2. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and
restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a
literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289–301.
3. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biome-
chanical considerations for the restoration
of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic
review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of
fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo stud-
ies). Quintessence Int 2008;39:117–129.
4. Salehrabi R, Rotstein I. Endodontic treatment
outcomes in a large patient population in
the USA: an epidemiological study. J Endod
2004;30:846–850.5. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal rein-
forcement and coronal coverage: a study of
endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent
1984;51:780–784.
6. Robbins JW Restoration of endodontically
treated teeth. In: Summit JB, Williams Robbins
J, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Op-
erative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach.
Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc,
2001:546–566.
Fig 11e Occlusal view of the restoration immedi-
ately after the occlusal control. Note that contacts of
the 2.5 in lateral movements were slightly removed
and lateral disclusion is clearly evident on 2.4 and 2.3.
Fig 11f Final view of the composite endocrown.
![Page 24: ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052607/563db97b550346aa9a9dbb01/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
7/23/2019 ejed_2013_02_s0156.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejed201302s0156pdf 24/24
ROCCA/KREJCI
7. Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi
D, de Campos E. Marginal
adaptation, retention and
fracture resistance of adhe-
sive composite restorations
on devital teeth with and
without posts. Oper Dent
2003;28:127–135.
8. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci
I, Sadan A. Biomechanical
considerations for the res-
toration of endodontically
treated teeth: a systematic
review of the literature –
Part 1. Composition and
micro- and macrostructure
alterations. Quintessence Int
2007;38:733–743.
9. Reeh ES, Messer HH,
Douglas WH. Reduction in
tooth stiffness as a result
of endodontic and restora-
tive procedures. J Endod
1989;15:512–516.
10. D’Incau E, Bartala M, Dos-
Santos A. Traitement de la
dent dépulpée postérieure.
La stratégie de préserva-
tion. Réalités Cliniques
2011;22:43–56.
11. Lin CL, Chang YH, Liu PR:
Multi-factorial analysis of a
cusp-replacing adhesive
premolar restoration: A
finite element study. J Dent
2008;36:194–203.
12. Magne P, Schlichting LH,
Maia HP, Baratieri LN. In vitro
fatigue resistance of CAD/
CAM composite resin and
ceramic posterior occlusal
veneers. J Prosthet Dent
2010;104:149–157.
13. Can Say E, Kayahan B,
Ozel E, Gokce K, Soyman
M, Bayirli G. Clinical evalu-
ation of posterior composite
restorations in endodontically
treated teeth. J Contemp
Dent Pract 2006;7:17–25.14. Adolphi G, Zehnder M, Bach-
mann LM, Göhring TN. Direct
resin composite restorations
in vital versus root-filled pos-
terior teeth: a controlled com-
parative long-term follow-up.
Oper Dent 2007;32:437–442.
15. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk
S. Long-term survival of
endodontically treated molars
without crown coverage: a
retrospective cohort study. J
Prosthet Dent 2005;93:164–
170.
16. Salameh Z, Sorrentino R,
Papacchini F, Ounsi HF, Tash-
kandi E, Goracci C, Ferrari
M. Fracture resistance and
failure patterns of endodon-
tically treated mandibular
molars restored using resin
composite with or without
translucent glass fiber posts.
J Endod 2006;32:752–755.
17. Sorrentino R, Monticelli F,
Goracci C, Zarone F, Tay
FR, García-Godoy F, Ferrari
M. Effect of post-retained
composite restorations and
amount of coronal residual
structure on the fracture
resistance of endodontically-
treated teeth. Am J Dent
2007;20:269–274.
18. Shahrbaf S, Mirzakouchaki B,
Oskoui SS, Kahnamoui MA.
The effect of marginal ridge
thickness on the fracture
resistance of endodontically-
treated, composite restored
maxillary premolars. Oper
Dent 2007;32:285–290.
19. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Bonded
indirect restorations for
posterior teeth: From cavity
preparation to provision-
alization. Quintessence Int
2007;3:371–379.
20. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Bonded
indirect restorations for
posterior teeth: the luting
appointment. Quintessence
Int 2007;38:543–553.
21. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pai CA.
Evaluation of failure risks
in ceramic restorations for
endodontically treated pre-
molar with MOD preparation.
Dent Mater 2011;27:431–438.
22. Bitter K, Meyer-Lueckel H,
Fotiadis N, Blunck U, Neu-mann K, Kielbassa AM, Paris
S. Influence of endodontic
treatment, post insertion, and
ceramic restoration on the
fracture resistance of maxil-
lary premolars. Int Endod J
2010;43:469–477.
23. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R,
Pera F, Pasqualini D, Berutti
E. The effect of the post
length and cusp coverage
on the cycling and static load
of endodontically treated
maxillary premolars. Clin Oral
Investig 2011;15:923–929.
24. Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii
MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour
EJ. Effect of fiber post and
cusp coverage on fracture
resistance of endodontically
treated maxillary premolars
directly restored with com-
posite resin. J Endod 2009
Oct;35:1428–1432.
25. Magne P, Knezevic A:
Simulated fatigue resistance
of composite resin versus
porcelain CAD/CAM overlay
restorations on endodonti-
cally treated molars. Quintes-
sence Int 2009;40:125–133.
26. Rocca GT, Bonnafous F,
Rizcalla N, Krejci I. A tech-
nique to improve the esthetic
aspects of CAD/CAM com-
posite resin restorations. J
Prosthet Dent 2010;104:273–
275.
27. Magne P, Knezevic A. Thick-
ness of CAD-CAM composite
resin overlays influences
fatigue resistance of endo-
dontically treated premolars.
Dent Mater 2009;25:1264–
1268.
28. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pa CA.
Estimation of the risk of failure
for an endodontically treated
maxillary premolar with
MODP preparation and CAD/
CAM ceramic restorations. J
Endod 2009;35:1391–1395.
29. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clin-
ical evaluation of adhesively
placed Cerec endo-crowns
after 2 years – prelimi-
nary results. J Adhes Dent
1999;1:255–265.
30. Bindl A, Richter B, Mörmann
WH. Survival of ceramic
computer-aided design/man-ufacturing crowns bonded
to preparations with reduced
macroretention geometry. Int
J Prosthodont 2005;18:219–
224.
31. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Restaura-
tions adhésives pour dent
dépulpée L’alternative au
tout couronne. Réalités Clin-
iques 2011;22:25–32.