Aleksandra Łyżwińska

Case by Aleksandra Łyżwińska DMD, Warsaw, Poland

Dental injuries can be stressful for patients, parents of pediatric patients, and dentists alike. The following tips offer support in turning the treatment of crown fractures into a simple, quick and predictable procedure. In the case described, we opted for a reattachment of fractured crown fragments.

YOUNG PATIENT WITH A FRACTURED CENTRAL INCISOR

A 16-year-old patient presented immediately after an accident. Her maxillary left central incisor was fractured, involving half of the coronal enamel and dentin (Fig. 1). The pulp was not involved, but the fracture line was quite close to the pulp (Fig. 2). After examination and radiographic evaluation, the patient was anesthetized. When placing the rubber dam, it tore between the left central and lateral incisor (Figs. 3 and 4). Due to the patient’s young age and limited willingness to cooperate, the decision was made to proceed without replacing the rubber dam. This was expected to work well in this specific region due to the limited flow of saliva from the palate and a low associated risk of contamination.

Fig. 1. Fractured maxillary left central incisor at the day of the accident.

Fig. 2. Occlusal view of the maxillary anterior teeth with the pulp of the fractured central incisor shining through.

Fig. 3. Rubber dam placed and torn between the left central and lateral incisor.

Fig. 4. Occlusal view of the teeth isolated with rubber dam.

REMOVAL OF UNSUPPORTED ENAMEL PRISMS

In order to provide for a high-quality bond and natural aesthetics, unsupported enamel prisms should be removed. As the use of burs might be too invasive (removing too much structure) and thus hinder the alignment of crown fragments, air-abrasion with 50 μm alumina particles was the method of choice. To avoid iatrogenic pulp exposure, the deepest part of the affected tooth was protected with a colored flowable composite before sandblasting (Fig. 5). The adjacent teeth were protected using a metal strip (Fig. 6). Several seconds of air abrasion were sufficient to remove the enamel prisms and obtain a homogeneous enamel surface (Fig. 7). Subsequently, the colored flowable composite was removed from the dentin surface and the tooth fragment was treated in the same way.

Fig. 5. Preparations for sandblasting: Dentin area near the pulp protected with flowable composite.

Fig. 6. Protection of the adjacent teeth with a metal strip.

Fig. 7. Homogeneous enamel surface after air abrasion.

JOINING OF THE FRAGMENT WITH THE REMAINING TOOTH STRUCTURE

After air-abrasion treatment, the fit of the tooth and the fragment was checked and approved (Fig. 8). To improve retention of the fractured crown portion, it was bonded to a micro applicator using composite resin. Alternatively, prefabricated prosthetic carriers may be used. Then, selective etching of the enamel was performed on the tooth and the fragment (Figs. 9 and 10). During this procedure, the adjacent teeth were protected with a celluloid strip (Fig. 11). To better adapt the strip to the distal surface, a curved wedge was placed interproximally (Fig. 12).

The bonding system of choice was CLEARFIL™ SE Bond 2 (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.). After applying this adhesive to the tooth and the fragment (Fig. 13), a small portion of CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow Super Low (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.) in the shade A2 was applied to the part of the fragment treated with adhesive.* After careful repositioning of the fragment and while holding it in place with the micro applicator, the composite was light cured.

Fig. 8. Perfect fit of the fragment to the tooth.

Fig. 9. Selective etching of the enamel on the tooth …

Fig. 10. … and the fragment.

Fig. 11. Position of the wedge …

Fig. 12. … used for better adaptation to the distal surface.

Fig. 13. Fragment treated with CLEARFIL™ SE Bond 2 PRIMER and BOND, which were both carefully air-dried, while the Bond was also light cured.

Fig. 14. Fragment back in place.

Fig. 15. Occlusal view of the teeth with the reattached fragment perfectly fitting the mould.

EXCESS REMOVAL AND POLISHING

Excess composite was removed with a scalpel blade and abrasive discs. The entire restoration was then polished using TWIST™ DIA for Composite (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Fig. 16). A nice optical integration was obtained immediately after finishing due to fact that the fragment was stored in water during the waiting time and treatment. As observed with teeth isolated with rubber dam during treatment, teeth undergo dehydration outside the oral cavity. The effect is much stronger in the latter setting, making a fragment become chalky white. By keeping the fragment in water, dehydration is limited to a minimum and it is possible to properly evaluate the aesthetic outcome. This has a positive impact on patient satisfaction. In the present case, the fragment and the tooth structure had a similar appearance, both showing a slightly increased brightness as a result of manipulation under rubber dam or in the air, respectively.

Fig. 16. Immediately after polishing, the fragment has almost the same brightness as the tooth thanks to water storage. A slight dehydration effect is visible.

TREATMENT OUTCOME

To achieve optimal aesthetics and long-lasting gloss, the composite was repolished one week later (Fig. 17). This was accomplished with a light blue high-shine rubber polisher of the TWIST™ DIA for Composite system, followed by polishing with diamond paste and a goat hair brush.

Fig. 17. Treatment outcome after one week.

Teeth previously isolated with a rubber dam and the fractured crown fragment had undergone rehydration and returned to their natural colour. The colour adaptation is satisfactory. Harmonious light reflections on the labial surface of the treated tooth a beautiful, natural shine have made the fracture site nearly invisible. In addition to aesthetic value, good therapeutic results were also achieved - the tooth responds appropriately to stimuli and is pain-free.

CONCLUSION

The described approach is a valuable treatment option for anterior trauma cases with relatively large fragments that are still available. By reattaching the natural structure, the need for complicated and time-consuming multi-shade layering and free-hand modeling is eliminated, while all the remaining natural tooth structure is saved. Instead of preparing the tooth, a removal of the unsupported enamel prisms and roughening of the surface is absolutely sufficient. Key elements for a great optical integration and long-lasting success are the proper use of a high-performance adhesive as well as the selection of a composite that has the ability to properly blend into its environment and offers a nature-like gloss retention. The selected materials offer precisely these features, so that the great outcome may be expected to last.

*CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow Super Low is indicated for cementation purposes. The cementation of tooth fragments, however, is not explicitly mentioned in the instructions for use. The decision to use the product in this context was made by the dental practitioner in charge of the treatment.

Case by Aleksandra Łyżwińska, Warsaw, Poland.

ABSTRACT

Indirect overlays are the contemporary restoration standard for posterior teeth with extensive hard tissue loss. They provide for cuspal coverage, which decreases the likeliness of coronal and/or root fracture. At the same time and in contrast to crowns, overlay preparations minimize the removal of sound tooth structure especially in the cervical region, which is a critical factor.¹ Modern dental resin composites allow for direct cuspal coverage in a single-visit appointment. The results of in-vitro studies suggest that these direct overlays are a suitable alternative to their indirect counterparts in specific situations.^2-6 The following case report is used to describe the direct restoration procedure by means of a maxillary right molar with an extensive, deep MOD lesion.

INTRODUCTION

In the context of treating a tooth with an extensive carious lesion, a biomechanical risk assessment should be performed. The primary method of reducing the likeliness of tooth fracture is treatment with a restoration that provides cuspal coverage. The contemporary gold standard for biomechanically compromised teeth are adhesively cemented overlays as an alternative to crowns.¹ Another option that does not involve labwork is a direct overlay restoration.^2-6 The direct approach is especially suitable for long-term temporization, which may be required during orthodontic treatment, for example.

Case by Dr. Aleksandra Łyżwińska, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT

Indirect overlays are the contemporary restoration standard for posterior teeth with extensive hard tissue loss. They provide for cuspal coverage, which decreases the likeliness of coronal and/or root fracture. At the same time and in contrast to crowns, overlay preparations minimize the removal of sound tooth structure especially in the cervical region, which is a critical factor.¹ Modern dental resin composites allow for direct cuspal coverage in a single-visit appointment. The results of in-vitro studies suggest that these direct overlays are a suitable alternative to their indirect counterparts in specific situations.^2-6 The following case report is used to describe the direct restoration procedure by means of a maxillary right molar with an extensive, deep MOD lesion.

INTRODUCTION

In the context of treating a tooth with an extensive carious lesion, a biomechanical risk assessment should be performed. The primary method of reducing the likeliness of tooth fracture is treatment with a restoration that provides cuspal coverage. The contemporary gold standard for biomechanically compromised teeth are adhesively cemented overlays as an alternative to crowns.¹ Another option that does not involve labwork is a direct overlay restoration.^2-6 The direct approach is especially suitable for long-term temporization, which may be required during orthodontic treatment, for example.

CLINICAL CASE

The 40-year-old male patient was referred to my office before an orthodontic and prosthetic treatment. Intraoral examination (Figs. 1 and 2) revealed:

• Tetracycline discolouration,
• Multiple extensive composite restorations with marginal leakage,
• Primary and secondary carious lesions, and
• Significant mechanical weakness^7,8 (mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities, cusp loss, cracks).

Fig. 1. Initial situation – extensive MOD composite resin restoration.

Fig. 2. Initial situation – unacceptable contact points, palatal wall crack line.

Based on a clinical and radiological examination (Fig. 3), it was decided to restore the maxillary right first molar with a direct overlay, which should serve as a long-term temporary for the duration of orthodontic treatment. Once the local anaesthetic had been administered, rubber dam was placed in the first quadrant and the cusps of the affected first molar were reduced. For subgingival tooth preparation, a rubber dam sheet was temporarily moved behind the second upper molar (Fig. 4). In order to obtain a good emergence profile of the restoration and a tight fit of the sectional matrix, the gingivectomy was performed with an electric surgical knife (Surtron 50D, LED SPA) (Fig. 5). The main advantages of a diathermal cut are instant tissue coagulation and hemostasis⁹.

Fig. 3. Bite-wing radiograph: Maxillary fist molar with an overhang and negative profile of the distal wall.

Fig. 4. Initial preparation with reduction of the cusps and exposure of gingiva.

Fig. 5. Gingivectomy performed using a surgical electric knife.

In accordance with the European Society of Endodontology’s guidelines on the management of deep caries¹⁰, the deepest part of the cavity was cleaned in full rubber dam isolation (Nic Tone Dental Dam, MDC Dental) (Fig. 6). Carious-tissue excavation was carried out using round burs, then the enamel and dentin were air-abraded with 50-μm aluminum oxide (Microetcher IIa, Danville). Multiple cracks, penetrating through the enamel and partially the dentin, occurred within the mesial and palatal walls. The presence of cracks crossing the dentin-enamel junction is an absolute indication to cuspal coverage^8,11.

An appropriate rubber dam isolation is essential in adhesive dentistry. Beyond the obvious advantage of a clean operation field uncontaminated by saliva and moisture, the rubber dam contributes to keeping periodontal tissues at a distance form a tooth. In order to ensure both, maximum retraction and sufficient space to work, the rubber dam was inverted (introduced to the gingival sulcus) and stabilized using PTFE tape (Fig. 7). The mesial wall was restored using a blue 3D Composite-Tight 3D Fusion matrix ring (Garrison) and a medium standard Sectional Contoured Metal Matrix (TOR VM, Fig. 8). Due to its extensiveness and shape, restoration of the distal wall was more difficult to perform.

Fig. 6. Rubber dam newly placed in the interproximal area. Full isolation is essential for the excavation of the infected dentin in the deepest part of the cavity.

Fig. 7. PTFE tape placement for improving isolation in the gingival area. Al₂O₃ sandblasting.

Fig. 8. Mesial matrix fit.

The first attempt to adapt an elongated Sectional Contoured Metal Matrix and the green 3D Composite-Tight 3D Fusion (Garrison) ended with failure (Fig. 9). The matrix was changed for a longer and more curved one (Fig. 10). The ring was replaced by a smaller Palodent V3 Ring (Dentsply Sirona, Fig. 11). Due to the depth of the carious lesion, an antibacterial adhesive system was used (CLEARFIL™ SE Protect, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.). It contains the MDPB monomer, which offers an antibacterial effect that lasts even after hybrid layer formation^12-14. Furthermore, the fluoride included in the bond liquid intensifies the cariostatic mechanism of CLEARFIL™ SE Protect and supports the so-called “Super Dentin” formation¹⁵.

Fig. 9. Insufficient fit of the distal matrix.

Fig. 10. New, longer and more curved matrix in place.

Fig. 11. Different matrix ring placed in the distal area.

After polymerization of the bonding agent, the nanohybrid flowable composite resin (CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow High, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.) was applied in a thin layer. The proximal wall was restored using both packable (CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.) and flowable composite resin (CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow Super Low, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.) (Figs. 12 and 13). Core build-up was performed with bulk-fill type composite. The cusps were reconstructed free-hand with the previously used CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal (Figs. 14 and 15). The universality of this product provides for a good optical integration and blending with the adjusted tissue, regardless of the colour of the underlying tooth structure. The fissures were gently highlighted using brown tints.

Fig. 12. Thin layer of flowable composite resin CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow High (A2) applied on the cavity floor. The proximal walls are built up with build-up by CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal and CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow Super Low (A2).

Fig. 13. Proximal walls build-up – palatal view.

Fig. 14. Core build-up. Free-hand cusp coverage with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal, palatal view.

Fig. 15. Cusp coverage – occlusal view.

The initial polishing was performed with the rubber dam still in place. The excesses of composite resin were removed with the aid of abrasive discs, diamond burs and a “Brownie” polisher (BAL, Nevadent). Pre-polishing and high-shine polishing were executed with TWIST™ DIA for Composite (Kuraray Europe GmbH.) supported by a goat hair brush (Micerium) (Figs. 16 to 17).

Fig. 16. Occlusal surface after surface modeling with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal and initial polishing.

Fig. 17. Occlusal surface after modeling with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Universal and initial polishing – palatal view.

After removal of the rubber dam, the occlusal contact points of the direct overlay were adjusted (Figs. 18 and 19). Every spot touched by the burr was subsequently repolished according to the previously described protocol (Figs. 20 and 21).

Fig. 18. Occlusal adjustment. Contact points recorded with articulation paper (100 μm).

Fig. 19. Occlusal adjustment. Contact points recorded with articulation paper (100 μm= and articulation foil (16 μm).

Fig. 20. Final effect after polishing with TWIST™ DIA for Composite.

FINAL SITUATION

Fig. 21. Final effect – palatal view.

CONCLUSION

As a result of decades of improvements mainly with regard to the filler density and polishability, modern dental composites offer a great gloss retention and favourable wear properties. In addition, polymerization shrinkage has been decreased due to the integration of nanohybrid filler technology. Those features allow us to restore biomechanically compromised teeth using a direct restoration technique.

Direct overlays are a suitable alternative for a conventional indirect restoration in many situations.^18,19 According to researchers, the advantages of direct restorations with cuspal coverage include minimal tooth preparation, vital pulp-oriented treatment, the possibility to treat patients in a single appointment and a potentially lower cost of the treatment.^18-20 However, it should be emphasized that the presented technique requires advanced restorative skills that need to be acquired first before starting to implement it.

REFERENCES

1. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature--Part 1. Composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007 Oct;38(9):733-43.
2. van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent. 2000 Jul;28(5):299-306. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00010-5. PMID: 10785294.
3. Mondelli RF, Ishikiriama SK, de Oliveira Filho O, Mondelli J. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 May-Jun;17(3):161-5.
4. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Multiple cuspal-coverage direct composite restorations: functional and esthetic guidelines. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(5):300-8; discussion 309-12.
5. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006;18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7.
6. Mincik J, Urban D, Timkova S, Urban R. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored by Various Direct Filling Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Biomater. 2016;2016:9138945.
7. Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989 Nov;15(11):512-6.
8. Banerji S, Mehta SB, Millar BJ. The management of cracked tooth syndrome in dental practice. Br Dent J. 2017 May 12;222(9):659-666.
9. Bashetty K, Nadig G, Kapoor S. Electrosurgery in aesthetic and restorative dentistry: A literature review and case reports. J Conserv Dent. 2009 Oct;12(4):139-44.
10. European Society of Endodontology (ESE) developed by:, Duncan HF, Galler KM, Tomson PL, Simon S, El-Karim I, Kundzina R, Krastl G, Dammaschke T, Fransson H, Markvart M, Zehnder M, Bjørndal L. European Society of Endodontology position statement: Management of deep caries and the exposed pulp. Int Endod J. 2019 Jul;52(7):923-934.
11. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. The cracked tooth syndrome. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002 Sep;68(8):470-5.
12. Hashimoto M, Hirose N, Kitagawa H, Yamaguchi S, Imazato S. Improving the durability of resindentin bonds with an antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater J. 2018 Jul 29;37(4):620-627.
13. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Torii M, Russell RR, McCabe JF. Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB into dentin primer. J Dent Res. 1997 Mar;76(3):768-72.
14. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003 Jun;19(4):313-9.
15. Nakajima M, Okuda M, Ogata M, Pereira PN, Tagami J, Pashley DH. The durability of a fluoride-releasing resin adhesive system to dentin. Oper Dent. 2003 Mar-Apr;28(2):186-92.
16. Bore Gowda V, Sreenivasa Murthy BV, Hegde S, Venkataramanaswamy SD, Pai VS, Krishna R. Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study. Scientifica (Cairo). 2015;2015:896507.
17. Oficjalne informacje producenta Kuraray Noritake Dental https://www.kuraraynoritake.eu/pl/clearfil-majesty-es-flow (dostęp 08.02.2022).
18. Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016 Oct;53:12-21.
19. Dhadwal AS, Hurst D. No difference in the long-term clinical performance of direct and indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. Evid Based Dent. 2017 Dec 22;18(4):121-122.
20. Banerji S, Mehta SB, Millar BJ. Cracked tooth syndrome. Part 2: restorative options for the management of cracked tooth syndrome. Br Dent J. 2010 Jun;208(11):503-14.
21. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Loomans BA, Bronkhorst EM. Seven-year clinical evaluation of painful cracked teeth restored with a direct composite restoration. J Endod. 2008 Jul;34(7):808-11.
22. van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent. 2000 Jul;28(5):299-306.

Case by Aleksandra Łyżwińska, DMD

This clinical case concerns a patient with a lesion on the occluso-distal aspect of the mandibular left first premolar. We opted for a direct treatment approach with a combination of flowable and high-viscosity composite resin (CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow - Super Low A2, CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic A2). In order to establish a strong bond between the tooth structure and the restorative material, we decided to selectively etch the enamel and then apply a clinically proven self-etch adhesive (CLEARFIL™ SE BOND 2).

Fig. 1. Initial clinical situation.

Fig. 2. Appearance of the premolar after caries removal.

Fig. 3. Placement of a sectional matrix for anatomical shaping, the establishing of tight interproximal contacts and protection of the adjacent tooth.

Fig. 4. Appearance of the tooth structure after selective enamel etching.

Fig. 5. Interproximal wall built up with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic (A2 shade) and cavity filled with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow - Super Low A2.

Fig. 6. After initial polishing.

FINAL SITUATION

Fig. 7. Occlusal view of the treatment outcome after finishing and polishing.

Fig. 8. Follow up after 1 week.

By Aleksandra Łyżwińska, DMD

The MOD restoration on the maxillary left second premolar of this patient was in need of replacement. It was decided to create a direct composite overlay with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow - Super Low A3, CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic A2. CLEARFIL™ SE BOND 2 was used after selective etching of the enamel to establish a chemical bond to enamel and dentin. For the finishing and polishing procedure, abrasive discs were used first, followed by silicon carbide rubber instruments and the CLEARFIL™ Twist DIA system.

Fig. 1. Initial clinical situation revealing the composite restoration to be replaced on the second premolar.

Fig. 2. Occlusal view of the teeth after cavity preparation including cusp reduction.

Fig. 3. Lateral view of the teeth after cavity preparation.

Fig. 4. Matrix band held in place with wedges and two rings.

Fig. 5. Situation after etching, bonding, removal of one ring, and build-up of the interproximal walls with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic in the shade A2.

Fig. 6. Cavity filled with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow - Super Low A3.

Fig. 7. Occlusal surface restored with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic in the shade A2.

Fig. 8. Polishing with the pre-polisher of the CLEARFIL™ Twist DIA system.

Fig. 9. Polishing with the high-shine polisher of the CLEARFIL™ Twist DIA system.

Fig. 10. Appearance of the restoration immediately after rubber dam removal and checking of the occlusal contacts.

FINAL SITUATION

Fig. 11. Linguo-occlusal view of the treatment outcome.

Fig. 12. Lateral view of the treatment outcome.

By Aleksandra Łyżwińska, DMD

This patient required the replacement of an insufficient composite restoration of the mandibular right second premolar. It was planned to restore the tooth using a combination of CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow – Super Low A3 and CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic A3 with some tints. CLEARFIL™ SE BOND 2 was the adhesive of choice. It produces a reliable chemical adhesion to dentin and enamel as it contains 10-MDP. The best results are obtained after selective enamel etching.

Fig. 1 Initial clinical situation.

Fig. 2 Removal of the existing restoration reveals carious tissue underneath.

Fig. 3 Appearance of the cavity after caries excavation and preparation.

Fig. 4 Dried tooth structure after selective enamel etching with a sectional matrix in place.

Fig. 5 Build-up of the interproximal wall with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic (shade A3) after the use of CLEARFIL™ SE BOND 2.

Fig. 6 Successful transformation of a Class II cavity to Class I.

Fig. 7 Cavity filled with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES Flow (Super Low A3).

Fig. 8 Appearance of the tooth after the application of a final layer of CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic (shade A3) and some tints.

Fig. 9 Polished restoration on the mandibular right second premolar.

FINAL SITUATION

Fig. 10 Treatment result ...

Fig. 11 ... after rubber dam removal.

By Aleksandra Łyżwińska, DMD

INITIAL SITUATION

Fig. 1 MOD filling with marginal leakage, secondary caries, and significant mechanical weakening.

Fig. 2 Cavity preparation extending over the buccal and palatal cusps.

Fig. 3 Direct restoration created with CLEARFIL MAJESTY™ ES-2 Classic, shade A2, and stains.

Fig. 4 Appearance of the restoration after polishing with CLEARFIL™ TWIST DIA.

FINAL SITUATION

Fig. 5 Repolishing during check-up one week later. The restoration shows an excellent color integration and natural gloss.