CHIEF COMPLAINT:
Patient was aesthetically displeased with a composite resin restoration on her upper left central incisor, which fractured frequently.
DIAGNOSIS:
Female patient, twenty-seven years old, non-smoker. Presented a “Class IV” composite resin restoration, on the mesial angle of tooth 2.1. This restoration was aesthetically lacking and fractured frequently. The incisal edge of the right central incisor, as well as the remaining left central incisor, both presented rather prominent markings. Several translucent areas would make this a challenging restoration, both technically and aesthetically. No dentine was exposed in the fractured area. The patient expressed her preference for a conservative approach to this rehabilitation.
TREATMENT PLAN:
Two therapeutic options were presented to the patient:
• Restoration using composite resin;
• Application of a micro feldspathic ceramic restoration (MCR), using the palatine surface for retention.
Being given a clear understanding of the pros and cons of each option, the patient opted for the micro ceramic restoration.
TEAM PLAY ‘DENTIST – DENTAL TECHNICIAN’ NOTES:
The micro feldspathic ceramic restoration was designed to use the palatine surface as its main support area, and installed solely by bonding. The vestibular surface overlapped the dental vestibular surface by about 2 mm. This overlap was slowly and gradually eliminated after bonding, using rubber tips and discs for ceramic polishing.