Traditionally, indirect restorations are expected to have better longevity than direct restorations. The introduction of adhesive dentistry and the minimally invasive approach of restorative treatment has changed this. In this article, the differences in longevity between direct and indirect restorations in the posterior dentition are explained. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect restorations placed in a minimally invasive way and using a proper adhesive technique are described.

Numerous dental restorations are placed each day in human teeth, mainly to restore defects caused by caries but also those caused by tooth wear (mechanical and erosive) and fracture.1  In addition, because dental restorations have limited longevity, a significant part of restorative work by dentists includes replacing defective existing restorations.2,3 

Basically, restoration replacement results in a restorative cycle of defective restorations being replaced by larger restorations that will someday fail again, which will lead to even larger restorations, possible root canal therapy, more risk for complications, and eventually tooth loss. This restorative cycle of death of the tooth was described by Elderton4  in 1988 and Simonsen5  in 1991. To reduce and maybe even interrupt this restorative cycle, which could possibly lead to prolonged tooth retention, different approaches must be considered:

  • Postpone the first restoration as long as possible by using advanced diagnostic methods and caries detection techniques.

  • Use less aggressive excavation and caries removal methods to maintain pulp vitality.

  • Reduce the amount of tooth substance loss by using minimally invasive preparation and restorative techniques.

  • Improve the restoration seal, bonding, and overall quality for longer restoration survival

  • Use a more conservative approach toward restoration replacement and maintenance by postponing, repairing, or refurbishing rather than always replacing completely.

Historically, indirect restorations, especially crowns, were considered long-lasting restorations, and the aim was for the restoration to be permanent. However, almost no restoration is really permanent, except the last one in a patient's lifetime. Traditionally, in a tooth that will be restored with an indirect restoration, all direct restorative materials are removed or are covered by the indirect restoration in an attempt to promote the restoration's longevity. This is mainly based on the assumption that an indirect restoration will have a better marginal fit and that indirect restorative materials are more resistant to deterioration over time due to wear, fracture, and discoloration. These traditional restorative concepts may be obsolete for two reasons:

  • 1.

    Even though differences are noted in vitro, the clinical longevity of modern adhesive restorative materials, whether placed directly or indirectly or under ideal and less than ideal circumstances, does not differ significantly (Table 1).

  • 2.

    Under less than ideal circumstances, certain risk factors may be present that are not related to the quality of the restorations or the different properties of direct and indirect restorations. These risk factors, such as high caries risk or bruxism, may impair restoration and tooth longevity independent from the type of material.6,7 

Table 1

Review Articles on the Longevity of Dental Restorations

Review Articles on the Longevity of Dental Restorations
Review Articles on the Longevity of Dental Restorations

Abbreviations: AFR, annual failure rate; CAD/CAM, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing; FPD, fixed partial denture.

For too long, the longevity of the restoration itself has been the focus of the attention. Today, it appears that it is more important to preserve the underlying tooth and the functioning of the dentition as a whole. In a good restorative concept, it is important to keep open future options for restorations as the present available restoration will fail in the future and will need replacement, repair, or adjustment. This is the essence of the biomimetics approach,8  in which the aim is not to create the strongest restoration but rather a restoration that is compatible with the mechanical, biologic, and optical properties of underlying tissues. This article will discuss recent developments in restorative dentistry that aim to preserve a well-functioning dentition during a lifetime.

Clinical data on the longevity of dental restorations are widely available but have to be interpreted with caution. Prospective clinical trials are considered the best option to measure the longevity of dental restorations. Several systematic reviews based on prospective clinical trials have been published and Table 1 shows the results for several types of restorations. It is remarkable that direct composite restorations, indirect ceramic and composite restorations, and crowns of several designs do not differ that much in annual failure rates, which vary between 1% and 2%, according to recent review articles.1,916  These studies conclude that indirect restorations, especially crowns, do not have better longevity.

A few drawbacks to these studies need to be mentioned. First, restorations in prospective clinical studies are mostly placed by calibrated operators in a university setting, which leads to optimal restorations that possibly last longer than those placed under real-life routine conditions in a general practice setting.17  Second, patient selection for prospective studies likely includes motivated patients without such problems as high caries risk or bruxism, factors that are known to have a negative effect on the longevity of dental restorations.6,7,18,19 

Therefore, it can be expected that a lower survival of restorations will be found in a general dental practice environment. Data are available from cross-sectional studies,2,2022  but this study design has been shown to grossly underestimate restoration longevity and results in findings of higher longevity for older materials. Thus, past conclusions that longevity of restorations in dental practices was as low as 3 years (median) for composites and 5 years for amalgam21  are not justified as these calculations are based on these deceptive data for failed restorations.23 

Data from longitudinal studies on longevity of dental restorations in a general practice environment are limited, and most are related to specific dentists6,7,24  or public health dental care.2527  From these practice-based studies, annual failure rates of 1%-3% for composites have been found dependent on several factors, and these data are comparable to the outcomes of university studies. From an insurance database in the United Kingdom, 10-year survival rates of crowns have been reported to be 48% for porcelain fused to metal and 68% for full metal crowns.28 

Therefore, it can be concluded that longevity data are no longer a justification for making a choice between direct and indirect restorations and between resin composite, metal, or ceramic materials.

Traditionally, small defects in teeth are treated with a direct restoration. For larger defects, including cusp replacement and deep cervical outline, different restorative options are available, either direct or indirect:

  • 1.

    For large posterior and anterior defects, a direct composite restoration can be a feasible solution. Several studies have shown that a direct composite is suitable for restoration of large defects, including cusp replacement, and for treating cracked teeth,6,2933  The skills of the operator, who should be able to deliver an adequate restoration with appropriate morphology as well as proximal and intermaxillary contacts, seem to be the predominant limiting factor.

  • 2.

    Inlay/onlay restorations are also considered to be an option for larger defects. They have the advantage of precision and better control on the final morphology and occlusion. However, the need for a tapered preparation design may result in increased tooth tissue loss. This can be prevented by using immediate dentin sealing34,35  and direct composite buildups to remove undercuts. Inlay/onlay restorations fit in a modern restorative concept; however, technique sensitivity and demands for the operator are not reduced compared with direct restorations.

  • 3.

    For a long time, crowns were considered the best restorations for severely compromised teeth. Disadvantages of crowns are that they require sufficient ferrule and that the outline should be extended considerably toward the cervical region which may result in loss of more tooth substance. The costs for crowns are considerable; therefore, some restorative dentists recommend alternative concepts.36  Furthermore, traditional crown preparations cut many sound areas that have never been attacked by caries. This primarily means that the probability of endodontic complications is significantly increased compared with more defect-oriented preparations.

  • 4.

    Indirect restoration with elevated margins.

When an indirect restoration is placed, typically all existing restorations are replaced or covered with the indirect restoration, which results in a considerable amount of tooth substance loss when trying to achieve a divergent preparation design without undercuts, especially when a full crown is placed. A restorative technique has been introduced to deal with the problem that indirect adhesive inlays are difficult to cement without rubber dam or matrix in situ to protect the area from contamination when a deep subgingival proximal outline is present.3739  With this restorative concept, called deep margin elevation, the outline of the indirect restoration is elevated to the supragingival level.

There are other clinical approaches to this dilemma. Deep gingival margins can be exposed by surgical apical displacement of the supporting bone and gingiva. This may, however, compromise the attachment level and generate possible anatomical complications such as the proximity of root concavities and furcations. Once exposed to the oral environment, those areas can be problematic to maintain and may generate other complications. In the more conservative deep margin elevation technique, a base of composite resin is used to elevate the subgingival proximal margins underneath direct or indirect bonded restorations (Figures 1 through 3). The procedure, also called coronal margin relocation, is performed under rubber dam isolation with the placement of a matrix. In addition to the supragingival elevation of the margin, immediate dentin sealing and an adhesive composite resin base are used to reinforce undermined cusps, fill undercuts, and provide the necessary geometry for the inlay/onlay restoration.

Figure 1

Clinical case indicated for the deep margin elevation technique.

Figure 2. Super-curved matrix modified for elevation.

Figure 3. Post-elevation bitewing radiograph.

Figure 1

Clinical case indicated for the deep margin elevation technique.

Figure 2. Super-curved matrix modified for elevation.

Figure 3. Post-elevation bitewing radiograph.

Traditionally, metal-based crowns are luted with glass-ionomers, zinc-carboxylate, or zinc-phosphate cement, materials that are somewhat forgiving in a relatively moist environment. The newer all-ceramic concepts require adhesive cementation based on composite bonding technology, as the preparations are less retentive, and optimal bonding of the restoration to the tooth is demanded.

A possible problem arising with cementing full ceramic crowns with a subgingival margin is how to maintain a dry working field for the adhesive procedure. In operative dentistry, moisture control is often obtained with a rubber dam, but this is not the only option. Use of cotton rolls and suction as well as special devices, such as an isolation mouthpiece (Isolite Systems, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) and a proper matrix and wedge as applied with direct restorations, offer good moisture control even with subgingival restorations. For subgingival indirect restorations, placement of a wedge and matrix is difficult as it would compromise the fit of the restoration. Therefore, unless margins are clearly relocated supragingivally, placement of a rubber dam can be done but probably will not prevent contamination from the sulcus and hence an indirect, subgingivally placed adhesive restoration seems to be a lucky shot when it comes to the quality of the marginal fit.

The previously described deep margin elevation technique could provide a solution for this problem as the first subgingival part of a large restoration could be placed using a specially designed matrix (Figures 1-3), enabling the best possible moisture control. Thereafter, a rubber dam could be placed easily and a (supragingival) direct or indirect restoration could be placed adhesively without too many problems.

The ultimate challenge for restorative treatment is a patient who suffers from severe tooth wear, especially one who is still relatively young. The main etiologic factors of severe tooth wear, including loss of vertical dimension, are erosion and bruxism. In particular, heavy bruxism can cause deterioration of teeth and dental restorations. For these patients the strongest restorations are required, but at the same time it has to be recognized that these restorations will have to be replaced in the future. Therefore, a treatment that mostly includes an increased vertical dimension would be minimally invasive and at the same time offer fracture-resistant restorations. Even wear/erosion accompanied by difficult anterior occlusal relationships (deep Class II or edge to edge) can be resolved in a minimally invasive way through occlusal therapy using the centric relation and the Dahl principle.40  Indirect restorations that need sacrifice of a substantial amount of tooth substance are therefore not the first choice, although in these patients crowns are often still recommended. Clinical studies of restorations in patients with severe tooth wear are limited and include only a few studies with direct composites,31,33,41  and those resulted in different levels of success. Several case reports have been published on minimally invasive indirect techniques using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) tabletop restorations or semidirect treatments using a mold intraorally and or using ceramic restricted to labial veneers.4244 

Posterior composites seem to be the most successful materials offering the most fracture-resistant restorations in cases of bruxism. In vitro studies confirm these results when fracture resistance of composites and ceramics bonded to dentin are tested. If this is the case, and clinical results should be obtained especially for indirect ceramic restorations in treating patients with tooth wear, then the question is why indirect restorations should be made if the purpose is to strengthen the tooth. Full metal restorations possibly have the best properties in this respect but are surely in decline. A recently published randomized clinical trial comparing indirect and direct restorations for premolar teeth with a cusp fracture showed no difference in performance.32 

Traditionally, reasons to choose indirect restorations ranged from indirect restorations are stronger to indirect restorations last longer, the defect is too large for a direct restoration, and subgingival margins in cementum require an indirect restoration. As can be concluded from this article, these reasons are no longer supported in contemporary dentistry. However, there are still some situations in which there are good reasons to choose an indirect over a direct technique, including the following:

  • In large rehabilitations in which the dentition has to be restored extensively, indirect techniques allow for preoperative design with wax-up or digital wax-up and better management of occlusion and vertical dimension.

  • In cases where optimal form and esthetics are required, indirect techniques have advantages, especially when ceramic materials are used.

  • In cases in which a direct restoration is too difficult for the operator to make, sometimes an indirect restoration can be more successful.

Alternatively, direct restorations are more preferred

  • When minimally invasive techniques are required, especially in high-risk and young patients.

  • When low-cost treatments are the only option.

  • When the dentist is skilled in direct techniques; for such operators, direct techniques are indicated in more situations.

In conclusion the following recommendations may be made:

  • 1.

    Crowns have limited indications, namely, to replace an existing crown, for implant restorations, and occasionally to serve as bridges for abutment teeth. In most other cases less invasive options should be preferred.

  • 2.

    Indirect or direct techniques should be minimally invasive and adhesive. Modern restorative techniques should include immediate dentin sealing, adhesive bases when required, and deep margin elevation in cases where indirect restorations have to be made.

  • 3.

    The operator's skill in direct techniques is an important factor. Training in large direct composites should be part of the dental training program.

  • 4.

    Indirect techniques should aim for predictable full mouth rehabilitations, as reconstructions can be supported by a preoperative diagnostic buildup/wax-up made by the dental technician or the dentist. CAD/CAM techniques might become increasingly important for these techniques.

  • 5.

    For a subgingival outline the deep margin elevation technique may be the best option for indirect restorations. This technique can also be useful when placing deep and large direct restorations.

  • 6.

    Ceramics offer the best esthetic properties, but because of their mechanical properties, they should be limited to the esthetic zone, especially for patients with bruxism.

This work was conducted in accordance with all the provisions of the local human subjects oversight committee guidelines and policies of the College of Dental Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, in the Netherlands.

The authors have no proprietary, financial, or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service, and/or company that is presented in this article.

1
Heintze
SD,
&
Rousson
V
(
2012
)
Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations—A meta-analysis
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
14
(
5
)
407
-
431
.
2
Burke
FJ,
Wilson
NH,
Cheung
SW,
&
Mjör
IA
(
2001
)
Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement
Journal of Dentistry
29
(
5
)
317
-
324
.
3
Deligeorgi
V,
Mjör
IA,
&
Wilson
NH
(
2001
)
An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations
Primary Dental Care
8
(
1
)
5
-
11
.
4
Elderton
RJ
(
1988
)
Restorations without conventional cavity preparations
International Dental Journal
38
(
2
)
112
-
118
.
5
Simonsen
R
(
1991
)
New materials in the horizon
Journal of the American Dental Association
122
(
7
)
24
-
31
.
6
Opdam
NJ,
Bronkhorst
EM,
Loomans
BA,
&
Huysmans
MC
(
2010
)
12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations
Journal of Dental Research
89
(
10
)
1063
-
1067
.
7
Van de Sande
FH,
Opdam
NJ,
Rodolpho
PA,
Correa
MB,
Demarco
FF,
&
Cenci
MS
(
2013
)
Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites
Journal of Dental Research
92
(
7 Supplement
)
78S
-
83S
.
8
Magne
P,
&
Belser
U
(
2002
)
Bonded Porcelain Restorations in the Anterior Dentition – A Biomimetic Approach
Quintessence Publishing Co
,
Chicago, IL 52
.
9
Manhart
J,
Chen
H,
Hamm
G,
&
Hickel
R
(
2004
)
Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition
Operative Dentistry
29
(
5
)
481
-
508
.
10
Fasbinder
DJ
(
2006
)
Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations
Journal of the American Dental Association
137
(
Supplement
)
22S
-
31S
.
11
Sailer
I,
Pjetursson
BE,
Zwahlen
M,
&
Hämmerle
CH
(
2007
)
A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses
Clinical Oral Implants Research
18
(
Supplement 3
)
86
-
96
12
Heintze
SD,
&
Rousson
V
(
2010
)
Fracture rates of IPS Empress all-ceramic crowns—A systematic review
International Journal of Prosthodontics
23
(
2
)
129
-
133
.
13
Wittneben
JG,
Wright
RF,
Weber
HP,
&
Gallucci
GO
(
2009
)
A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single-tooth restorations
International Journal of Prosthodontics
22
(
5
)
466
-
471
.
14
Pjetursson
BE,
Sailer
I,
Zwahlen
M,
&
Hämmerle
CH
(
2007
)
A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns
Clinical Oral Implants
18
(
Supplement 3
)
73
-
85
.
15
Larsson
C,
&
Wennerberg
A
(
2014
)
The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: A systematic review
International Journal of Prosthodontics
27
(
1
)
33
-
43
.
16
Opdam
NJ,
Van de Sande
FH,
Bronkhorst
E,
Cenci
MS,
Bottenberg
P,
Pallesen
U,
Gaengler
P,
Lindberg
A,
Huysmans
MC,
&
van Dijken
JW
(
2014
)
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal of Dental Research
93
(
10
)
943
-
949
.
17
Frankenberger
R,
Reinelt
C,
Petschelt
A,
&
Krämer
N
(
2009
)
Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays
Dental Materials
25
(
8
)
960
-
968
.
18
Correa
MB,
Peres
MA,
Peres
KG,
Horta
BL,
Barros
AJ,
&
Demarco
FF
(
2013
)
Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach
Journal of Dentistry
41
(
11
)
960
-
967
.
19
Demarco
FF,
Corrêa
MB,
Cenci
MS,
Moraes
RR,
&
Opdam
NJ
(
2012
)
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials
Dental Materials
28
(
1
)
87
-
101
.
20
Sunnegårdh-Grönberg
K,
van Dijken
JW,
Funegård
U,
Lindberg
A,
&
Nilsson
M
(
2009
)
Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden
Journal of Dentistry
37
(
9
)
673
-
678
.
21
Mjör
IA,
Dahl
JE,
&
Moorhead
JE
(
2000
)
Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
58
(
3
)
97
-
101
.
22
Palotie
U,
&
Vehkalahti
M
(
2002
)
Reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in posterior teeth of young Finnish adults
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
60
(
6
)
325
-
329
.
23
Opdam
NJ,
Bronkhorst
EM,
Cenci
MS,
Huysmans
MC,
&
Wilson
NH
(
2011
)
Age of failed restorations: A deceptive longevity parameter
Journal of Dentistry
39
(
3
)
225
-
230
.
24
Da RosaRodolpho
PA,
Donassollo
TA,
Cenci
MS,
Loguércio
AD,
Moraes
RR,
Bronkhorst
EM,
Opdam
NJ,
&
Demarco
FF
(
2011
)
22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics
Dental Materials
27
(
10
)
955
-
963
.
25
Kopperud
SE,
Tveit
AB,
Gaarden
T,
Sandvik
L,
&
Espelid
I
(
2012
)
Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure
European Journal of Oral Science
120
(
6
)
539
-
548
.
26
Pallesen
U,
van Dijken
JW,
Halken
J,
Hallonsten
AL,
&
Höigaard
R
(
2014
)
A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement
Clinical Oral Investigations
18
(
3
)
819
-
827
.
27
Pallesen
U,
van Dijken
JW,
Halken
J,
Hallonsten
AL,
&
Höigaard
R
(
2013
)
Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: A prospective 8 years follow up
Journal of Dentistry
41
(
4
)
297
-
306
.
28
Burke
FJ,
&
Lucarotti
PS
(
2009
)
Ten-year outcome of crowns placed within the General Dental Services in England and Wales
Journal of Dentistry
37
(
1
)
12
-
24
.
29
Opdam
NJ,
Roeters
JJ,
Loomans
BA,
&
Bronkhorst
EM
(
2008
)
Seven-year clinical evaluation of painful cracked teeth restored with a direct composite restoration
Journal of Endodontics
34
(
7
)
808
-
811
.
30
Laegreid
T,
Gjerdet
NR,
&
Johansson
AK
(
2012
)
Extensive composite molar restorations: 3 years clinical evaluation
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
70
(
4
)
3443
-
3452
.
31
Hamburger
JT,
Opdam
NJ,
Bronkhorst
EM,
Kreulen
CM,
Roeters
JJ,
&
Huysmans
MC
(
2011
)
Clinical performance of direct composite restorations for treatment of severe tooth wear
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
13
(
6
)
585
-
593
.
32
Fennis
WM,
Kuijs
RH,
Roeters
FJ,
Creugers
NH,
&
Kreulen
CM
(
2014
)
Randomized control trial of composite cuspal restorations: five-year results
Journal of Dental Research
93
(
1
)
36
-
41
.
33
Attin
T,
Filli
T,
Imfeld
C,
&
Schmidlin
PR
(
2012
)
Composite vertical bite reconstructions in eroded dentitions after 5·5 years: a case series
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
39
(
1
)
73
-
79
.
34
Magne
P
(
2005
)
Immediate dentin sealing: A fundamental procedure for indirect bonded restorations
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
.
17(3)
144
-
154
;
35
Magne
P,
Kim
TH,
Cascione
D,
&
Donovan
TE
(
2005
)
Immediate dentin sealing improves bond strength of indirect restorations
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
94
(
6
)
511
-
519
.
36
Rocca
GT,
&
Krejci
I
(
2013
)
Crown and post-free adhesive restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth: From direct composite to endocrowns
European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
8
(
2
)
156
-
179
.
37
Roggendorf
MJ,
Krämer
N,
Dippold
C,
Vosen
VE,
Naumann
M,
Jablonski-Momeni
A,
&
Frankenberger
R
(
2012
)
Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of resin composite inlays in vitro
Journal of Dentistry
40
(
12
)
1068
-
1073
.
38
Frankenberger
R,
Hehn
J,
Hajtó
J,
Krämer
N,
Naumann
M,
Koch
A,
&
Roggendorf
MJ
(
2013
)
Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro
Clinical Oral Investigations
17
(
1
)
177
-
183
.
39
Magne
P,
&
Spreafico
RC
(
2012
)
Deep margin elevation: A paradigm shift
American Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
2
(
2
)
86
-
96
.
40
Magne
P,
Magne
M,
&
Belser
UC
(
2007
)
Adhesive restorations, centric relation, and the Dahl principle: Minimally invasive approaches to localized anterior tooth erosion
European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
2
(
3
)
260
-
273
.
41
Bartlett
D,
&
Sundaram
G
(
2006
)
An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth
International Journal of Prosthodontics
19
(
6
)
613
-
617
.
42
Grütter
L,
&
Vailati
F
(
2013
)
Full-mouth adhesive rehabilitation in case of severe dental erosion, a minimally invasive approach following the 3-step technique
European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
8
(
3
)
358
-
375
.
43
Vailati
F,
Gruetter
L,
&
Belser
UC
(
2013
)
Adhesively restored anterior maxillary dentitions affected by severe erosion: Up to 6-year results of a prospective clinical study
European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
8
(
4
)
506
-
530
.
44
Güth
JF,
Almeida
E
Silva
JS,
Ramberger
M,
Beuer
F,
&
Edelhoff
D
(
2012
)
Treatment concept with CAD/CAM-fabricated high-density polymer temporary restorations
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
24
(
5
)
310
-
318
.