Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination





An objective description of patients' factors should become available in clinical studies, since their contribution to restoration survival cannot be ignored and may assist clinical decision making in challenging situations.

The decision whether a required dental restoration should be direct or indirect is made daily in clinical practice. Guidelines for this decision are presented.

In addition to minimally invasive interventions, noninvasive and microinvasive options should be a focus in modern cariology in order to preserve dental hard tissues to a greater extent, as has been the case in recent decades.

Restoration replacement is considered to be a last resort, subsequent to excluding the preventively oriented, minimum intervention alternatives of monitoring, refurbishment, and repair.

This article provides an overview of the state of the art of different restorative treatment procedures and techniques needed for placing extended posterior resin composite restorations.

This work summarizes reasons for failure, survival of repaired reconstructions, elaborates upon types and mechanisms of available surface conditioning methods, and presents operative dentists with practical guidelines for intraoral repair procedures.

This pilot study highlights that a considerable proportion of variation in dental decision making is independently attributable to provider-specific factors. These results emphasize the continuing challenges of the limited availability of robust scientific evidence, limited implementation of and adherence to clinical guidelines, as well as habitually anchored rather than evidence-informed clinical decision-making routines.

The cases show that composites may be a valid alternative to indirect restorations.

This technique enables the dentist to restore teeth in occlusion with direct composites in a predictable and minimally invasive way.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal