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.

Purpose: The immediate application of a dentin-bonding agent after tooth preparation and before impression-taking (immediate dentin sealing [IDS]) has been suggested to provide several advantages concerning bacterial microleakage, hypersensitivity, and bonding quality. We reviewed the literature and clarified certain aspects related to each step of IDS application. Materials and Methods: The search strategy comprised an electronic research in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Ovid and Scopus for studies published from January 1990 to December 2020 regarding the IDS technique and including both in vitro and clinical studies. Results: After exclusion of irrelevant or duplicate articles, 88 articles focusing on aspects of the IDS technique were assessed. IDS seems to be advantageous with regard to bond strength, gap formation, bacterial microleakage, and dentin hypersensitivity. However, issues arising from interaction with impression materials, the provisional phase, and conditioning methods before cementation require further investigation. Conclusion: There are no documented reasons preventing clinicians applying IDS in their everyday practice. On the contrary, the presented technique seems to be beneficial in certain aspects regarding indirect restorations.

The aim of this literature review is to determine whether endocrowns are a reliable alternative for endodontically treated teeth with extensive loss of tooth structure, the indications and contraindications of this restorative choice, the principles that should be followed for tooth preparation and which material is most appropriate for endocrown fabrication. Rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with severe coronal destruction has always been a challenge for the dental clinician. Until recently, the fabrication of a metal-ceramic or all-ceramic full-coverage crown along with a metal or glass fiber post has been the "gold standard" proving its efficacy via numerous clinical studies. With the development of CAD/CAM technology and the evolution of dental materials, new minimally invasive techniques have been introduced with less need for adjustments and less incorporation of structural defects. One of them, the "monoblock technique," proposed by Pissis in 1995, was the forerunner of endocrown restoration, a term used by Bindl and Mörmann to describe 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. Endocrowns require a decay-oriented preparation taking advantage of both the adhesion and the retention from the pulp-chamber walls, they are strongly indicated in endodontically treated molars in cases where minimal interocclusal space and curved or narrow root canals are present and they should be manufactured from materials that can be bonded to the tooth structure. Endocrowns are a reliable alternative to traditional restorative choices, given that the clinicians respect the requirements and indications describing this technique. Traditional restorative techniques demanding tooth substance removal and minimizing the opportunity for reinterventions should be reconsidered.

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.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the relation of the implant position to the implant crown and analyze the location and magnitude of bite force.Materials and Methods: The dimensions of 49 posterior implant‐supported restorations were recorded in terms of: 1. implant diameter, 2. crown length, 3. crown width, 4. crown height, 5. occlusal surface of the restoration. The crown/implant height was measured and the distance between the implant center and the restoration center revealed the size of intra‐coronal cantilevers. The occlusal force analysis determined the point and magnitude of loading. Correlation coefficient r was used for the statistical process and statistical control was carried out with the aid of t‐test with minimum level of significance p < 0.05.Results: The mean crown‐to‐implant ratio was 0.9 and in short implants (< 10mm) the ratio was 1.28. Intra‐coronal cantilever extensions ranged from 2.1 mm to 6.35 mm depending on crown size. Occlusal loading was identified in cantilever areas of the crown. Conclusions: Implant center deviates from crown center in 71%–82% of the cases depending on site location. Implants with non‐ideal position may support a functionally occluding crown. Clinical Significance: Intra‐coronal cantilevers are a critical factor to avoid clinical complications and should be taken under consideration both in the planning and fabrication phase of implant restorations.