A conservative approach for restoring deep proximal lesions is to apply an increment of composite resin over the preexisting cervical margin to relocate it coronally, the so-called “deep margin elevation” (DME). A literature search for research articles referring to DME published from January 1998 until November 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Semantic Scholar databases applying preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Elevation material and adhesive system employed for luting seem to be significant factors concerning the marginal adaptation of the restoration. This technique does not affect bond strength, fatigue behavior, fracture resistance, failure pattern or repairability. DME and subgingival restorations are compatible with periodontal health, given that they are well-polished and refined. The available literature is limited mainly to in vitro studies. Therefore, randomized clinical trials with extended follow-up periods are necessary to clarify all aspects of the technique and ascertain its validity in clinical practice. For the time being, DME should be applied with caution respecting three criteria: capability of field isolation, the perfect seal of the cervical margin provided by the matrix, and no invasion of the connective compartment of biological width.

Implants are currently used to serve as abutments for implant‐assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) to facilitate retention and support of the prosthesis. Implants are proposed in cases of posterior edentulous areas to convert Kennedy Class I or II to Class III or when the preparation of existing teeth to serve as abutments is contraindicated. The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol applied to fabricate an IARPD to restore a Kennedy Class II mandible of an elderly patient by incorporating traditional methods, such as the altered cast technique. Each step of the clinical procedure is thoroughly illustrated to document the selected appointment sequence. The patient was satisfied with the delivered prosthesis that demanded no additional implants to be placed but exploitation of an existing one. IARPDs are a viable and cost‐effective solution substantiated by numerous reports with positive effects on patient satisfaction.

The classical approach for the preparation of an endodontically treated molar with a post and core involves widening the anatomically complex system of canals, which may be narrow or curved with variable angulation. The aforementioned along with the fact that restorative dentistry stands against the wastage of tooth tissue make endocrowns an appealing alternative. Bindl and Mörmann first described an all-ceramic crown anchored to the internal portion of the pulp chamber and on the cavity margins, thus obtaining macromechanical retention provided by the axial opposing pulpal walls and microretention attained with the use of adhesive cementation. The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol for the treatment plan selection, preparation, impression, and adhesive cementation of an endocrown with a follow-up of 5 years. A 56-year-old male patient presented to the Postgraduate Clinic of Prosthodontics seeking rehabilitation for tooth No. #36. A clinical examination revealed multiple immediate composite resin restorations with unacceptable morphology and adaptation to the remaining tooth as well as a lack of a contact point but, rather, a large, concave contact area facilitating food entrapment. Since the tooth was endodontically treated, the proposed treatment plan included the fabrication of an all-ceramic endocrown. The steps of preparation, attribution of the correct shape, impression, and adhesive luting under rubber dam isolation are thoroughly described. The final functional and aesthetic result, patient’s satisfaction, and the 5-year follow-up render restorations such as endocrowns, which draw their retention from adhesive luting, a viable alternative to conventional approaches.