Jeff: thanks for sharing a nice conservative technique for us to see……..

I dont like doing these kinds of preps because in my hands inevitably an unsupported cusp fractures off (MB for instance) but you have done it well. I dont believe the bonding strengthens the tooth so much.

ANother question, why Panavia F which is so opaque for such a case. I think an alterantive would be a resin cement such as Variolink or Calibra or something translucent which would have made your margins less noticeable because they do stand out.

Again in closing , thanks for sharing the case, and dont think I am being too picky ( I didnt talk about biologic width yet did I )

Grin

and thanks

Glenn

Hi Jeff,

I end up in your camp about bonding these sorts of restorations.

I started bonding with DICORs in 1985, and after figuring out it was the poor occlusion that caused my problems, I now have complete confidence in my posterior inlays like this.

But I have EVERY crown, inlay whatever patient back for a one week post-op check to look at their bite on the new restoration. AMAZING what shows up ay 1 week that didn’t at the seat appt.

Bob

Glenn,

I’m LOL….and watching the French Open tennis.

I hear those EXACT same objections……

Decaf!? Heck, I need caffeinated Hi Test to get going every morning…….

It’s been funny about the microscope. The first year I used it 10% of the time and then only on .55 (unless I was using it to retrieve separated intruments in endo–then up to 1.5). The 2nd year I used it 20% of the time an occasionally at .66. The 3rd year I used it 40% of the time and mostly at .66. The 4th year I used it 60% of the time at .66 and 1. Now I used it 90% of the time at 1, and feel extremely comfortable to take photos….cuz it’s sooooo easy with digital cameras!

I used to bug Ralph Klink about getting 35mm for the camera, and he said to wait until digital got better. He said I would go crazy trying to get good case documentaion with 35mm. Appears he was right. This is fun!

I REALLY do understand how STRESSFUL “Change” can be in the clinical operatory (and office in general). Everytime we bring in a new technology, there is stress involved–even though it is “positive” stress–it’s STILL stress to learn something new.

I respect those who are measured and cautious in how, what, and when they bring new stuff in so that they can get the best out of the technology for their patients.

Glenn, you can feel very good about yourself and your tireless efforts to reach, challenge, and inspire so many in the profession–inlcuding the likes of me. You will never know how much you are admired and appreciated by so many who will never consider to mention it to you.

Time for my caffeine…….

Hope to see you around the 15th. Disneyland is just down the FWY from me.

Bob

Hi Jeff: thanks for the update……I will maintain that I dont like the opaque color for posterior white onlays or inlays………for gold ok but that is your choice.

As for the bonding , I am glad you are getting those kind of results , I dont. My experiences with bonded indirect resins hasnt been very good. Same kind of results as with Targis Vectris which sucked in my hands.

I applaud your efforts and photography.

Thanks

Glenn

Glenn,

NO flame retardant needed for posts like this. You did a tremendous service for your patient – that is the main concern – results. You used the instruments that you have very well.

I would have used other instruments simply because I have other instruments. But there is no way that anyone should argue that you should not have used a particular instrument – or did the work that you did with the instruments you used.

One thing that I try to do when doing both sides of a contact point with composite is remove one of the “dueling” bands as soon as that side is cured to reduce the thickness of my bands and increase the potential for my ring clamp to give me the interproximal pressure that I desire in my contact point.

Great work and visibility.