Many new materials have been introduced in the last decade. From this wide variety of materials, dentists can now choose those that meet their needs and those of their patients. However, it is difficult to ascertain long-term benefits as most of these materials have not undergone long-term clinical trials. This article will present guidelines to enable the clinician to assess these new materials and a clinical case will demonstrate the use of new materials and technology.

The ability to confidently bond a restoration to a tooth has dramatically changed the practice of dentistry. With composite restorative materials and methods available today, the adage “extension for prevention” is no longer applicable. The preparation design is no longer determined by the need for supplemental retention, but is designed with the primary concerns of caries removal and conservation of tooth structure. Specific examples include design and dimension of the preparation, esthetics, lesser dependence on mechanical retention, and the potential for increasing the fracture resistance of the restored tooth.1

Composite resins are basically a mixture of an organic resin matrix, inorganic filler particles, and a coupling agent. The matrix and the filler are the components that dictate most of the material’s mechanical properties (ie, fracture toughness and elastic modulus), as well as physical properties. The most commonly used classification considers mainly the distribution and average particle size of a given composite’s filler. The main characteristics of microfilled composites are the high polish that can be achieved and maintained over time and excellent enamel-like translucency. Hybrid composite resins contain a heterogeneous aggregate of filler particles. This mixture of fillers accounts for their excellent physical properties with high polishability when compared to the earlier macrofilled composites. Nanofilled composites present similar mechanical and physical properties to those of microhybrid composites, but when it comes to polish and gloss retention they perform significantly better.

Taking an impression is a craft and, as with any other skill, proficiency comes from practice but first, the technique to practice must be decided upon. This article reviews the history of impression taking, discusses various impression techniques, with a focus on the dual-arch technique, and elaborates on material selection.

Fillers are the components of composite restorative materials that most affect their properties. The smaller the filler size and the larger the filler content, the better the polishability and greater the wear resistance. Nanofilled composite resins were introduced to answer clinician demands for a universal restorative material that can be used for all types of direct restorations, even those in the posterior dentition. This article article focuses on the use of a small particle resin composite for the restoration of two posterior interproximal carious lesions. The clinical advantages of the material will be discussed, as well as the detailed protocol used to incrementally place the composite to ensure clinical success.

Complete denture impressions can be classified into preliminary impression and final impression groups. In both stages, impression accuracy and the ability of the material to replicate the detail of the clinical oral environment are of the utmost importance in ensuring a clinically accurate and seamless prosthetic/oral interface. The choice of final impression method should be considered in the treatment-planning phase of complete dentures. The border molding process allows for close adaptation of a custom tray to the vestibule. A clinical case is presented using the functional impression technique

In addition to their ability to transform the esthetics of a patient's smile, today's porcelain laminate veneers are many practitioners' first choice for correcting functional dental problems. Their successful incorporation into the treatment plan, however, is predicated on the proper use of adjunct materials that contribute equally to the clinical predictability of these restorations.

Predictable tissue retraction and adhesive dentistry can be laborious and tedious tasks for many dental professionals. Putty or paste tissue retraction has significantly improved the ability to achieve tissue management in less time in the most difficult situations. Self-etching, dual-cure resin cements offer the clinician a simplified technique to cement non-metal restorations with little to no sensitivity and significant bond strengths.