Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for

anterior teeth
Daniel Edelhoff, Dr Med Dent,a and John A. Sorensen, DMD, PhDb
School of Dentistry, Medical Center, University of Aachen, Germany; and School of Dentistry, Oregon
Health Sciences University, Portland, Ore.
Statement of problem. The conservation of sound tooth structure helps preserve tooth vitality and
reduce postoperative sensitivity. Innovative preparation designs, like those for porcelain laminate veneers,
are much less invasive than conventional complete-coverage crown preparations. However, no study has
quantified the amount of tooth structure removed during these preparations.
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the amount of tooth structure
removed when various innovative and conventional tooth preparation designs were completed on different
teeth.
Material and methods. A new comprehensive tooth preparation design classification system was intro-
duced. Typodont resin teeth representing the maxillary left central incisor, maxillary left canine, and
mandibular left central incisor were prepared with the following designs: partial (V1), traditional (V2),
extended (V3), and complete (V4) porcelain laminate veneer preparations; resin-bonded retainer prepara-
tion with grooves (A1) and with wing/grooves (A2); all-ceramic crown preparation with 0.8 mm axial
reduction and tapering chamfer finish line (F1), all-ceramic crown preparation with 1.0 mm axial reduc-
tion and rounded shoulder finish line (F2), and metal-ceramic crown with 1.4 mm axial reduction and
facial shoulder finish line (F3). After tooth preparations (10 per group), the crown was separated from the
root at the CEJ. The removed coronal tooth structure was measured with gravimetric analysis. Means and
standard deviations for tooth structure removal with different preparation designs were calculated and
analyzed with analysis of variance at a significance level of P<.05.
Results. Significant differences in the amount of tooth structure removal were noted between prepara-
tion designs. Ceramic veneers and resin-bonded prosthesis retainers were the least invasive preparation
designs, removing approximately 3% to 30% of the coronal tooth structure by weight. Approximately 63%
to 72% of the coronal tooth structure was removed when teeth were prepared for all-ceramic and metal-
ceramic crowns. For a single crown restoration, the tooth structure removal required for an F3
preparation (metal-ceramic crown) was 4.3 times greater than for a V2 preparation (porcelain laminate
veneer, facial surface only) and 2.4 times greater than for a V4 preparation (more extensive porcelain lami-
nate veneer).
Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, tooth preparations for porcelain laminate veneers and
resin-bonded prostheses required approximately one-quarter to one-half the amount of tooth reduction of
conventional complete-coverage crowns. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:503-9.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
The innovative preparation designs evaluated in this study conserved significant
amounts of sound tooth structure.

A fundamental principle in replacing missing

tooth structure or missing teeth is the restoration of
This study was supported in part through research grant ED 69/1-1
from the German Society of Research (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft) and the OHSU Applied Prosthodontic
Materials Research Lab.
aAssociate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, University of
function and esthetics at minimal biologic cost. Given
their reliability and durability, conventional metal-
ceramic restorations with a complete-crown
preparation design generally are the treatment of
choice for anterior single tooth restorations and fixed
partial dentures (FPDs).1 However, this technique
requires considerable reduction of tooth structure. For
a metal-ceramic shoulder preparation, a facial tooth

Aachen School of Dentistry.

reduction of about 1.3 to 1.5 mm is recommended.2,3
bODA Centennial Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Department of In certain situations, it may be necessary to increase
Prosthodontics, Oregon Health Sciences University School of axial tooth reduction to between 1.75 and 2 mm in
Dentistry. order to achieve the desired esthetic result.4

MAY 2002 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 503

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN

Table I. Codes and armamentarium employed for the veneer preparation designs
Code Tooth Preparation design Dimensions (mm) Burs Fig. Ref.

V1 Maxillary left central Partial veneer, incisal Extension: horizontal 4.0, Set #2590* 3, 9 32
incisor third, mesial edge up vertical 3.5
Incisal clearance: 1.0
Margin depth: 0.7
Maxillary left canine Partial veneer to reestablish Incisolingual extension: 6856-31-014 2 33
canine guidance horizontal 4.0, vertical 4.0 88011-31-021
Incisal clearance: 1.0
Margin depth: 0.7
Mandibular left central Partial veneer, incisal third, Margin location: 3.0 apical Set #2590* 1 32
incisor circular edge up from incisal edge
Incisal clearance: 1.0
Margin depth: 0.7
V2 All Traditional veneer, medium Margin: 0.5 incisal from CEJ TFC-1† 4, 9 34-36
wrap, preservation of Facial reduction: cervical third 868A.314-018
interproximal contacts, 0.2-0.3, middle third 0.5, 686-31-014
chamfer finishing line incisal third 0.5-0.7 686-31-016
H375R-31-014
H375R-31-016
V3 All Extended veneer. See V2. See V2. Additional incisal See V2 4, 9 34, 37
Additional oral overlap clearance: 1.0 (man LCI),
1.5 (max LCI and C).
Additional lingual overlap: 1.0
V4 All Full veneer. See V3. See V3. Except incisal See V2. Additional 4, 9 34, 35,
Additional long wrap design clearance: 1.5 (man LCI) or 5858-31-014 37
with removal of 2.0 (max LCI and C) (removal of IP)
interproximal contacts
*Manufactured by Hager & Meisinger (Düsseldorf, Germany).
†Manufactured by Brasseler (Savannah, Ga.).

The introduction of modified complete-crown endodontic intervention.18 The combination of high-

preparations for cast metal and metal-ceramic crowns
has been correlated with increased pulpal complica-
tions. In a 1966 study, only 0.4 to 2% radiographic
periapical pathologies were found; in 1970, 2.9% was
reported, and 10 years later, up to 4.0% periapical
pathologies were detected.5-7 These results can be
explained by the increased use of air turbines and more
invasive shoulder or chamfer preparations for metal-
ceramic restorations compared to the feather-edge
design used in the 1960s and 1970s.8
The introduction of new ceramic materials, as well
as advances in the field of adhesive cementation tech-
niques, have increased the use of all-ceramic crowns
and have facilitated innovative, conservative prepara-
tion designs for single tooth and FPD restorations.9-15
The reliable bond to enamel achieved with the adhe-
sive technique has greatly impacted preparation
design, resulting in significant preservation of tooth
structure.16 The retention of enamel has become an
important issue for preparation design.17 Increased
preservation of enamel promotes a superior bond over
dentin, lower post-cementation sensitivity, improved
support of the ceramic restoration, and reduced
ly translucent porcelains and composite cements has
facilitated the clinical use of the adhesive technique
and launched a new era of restorative treatment
options.
Due to their excellent clinical performance, out-
standing esthetics, and minimal invasiveness,
resin-bonded veneers19 and FPDs20 offer an excellent
treatment option with an ever-expanding range of
indications.21,22 However, the tooth preparation
requires a careful and meticulous technique.23
Restorative techniques are considered advantageous
for both maintenance of tooth vitality and economy of
hard tissues.24 Data on the loss of vitality are limited
among the clinical studies on veneer restorations. A
5-year clinical study on ceramic veneers recorded a
2.3% loss of vitality, which was related to preexisting
deep interproximal composite restorations.25 Reports
of endodontic complications with single full-crown
restorations vary from 3% after 5 years to 5% after 8
years.26,27 The higher incidence of vitality loss with
FPD abutments (reported in a range of 3% after 5
years to 21% after 6 years) is probably related to the
greater tooth reduction required to align multiple

504 VOLUME 87 NUMBER 5

EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table II. Codes and armamentarium employed for the adhesive attachments and complete-crown preparation designs
Code Tooth Preparation design Dimensions (mm) Burs* Fig. Ref.

A1 Maxillary left central incisor Adhesive attachment, Facial groove: 4.5 × 1.0 × 0.8 8847KR-31-016 9 10
grooves (all-ceramic) Oral groove: 2.0 × 1.0 × 0.8
Maxillary left canine Adhesive attachment, Facial groove: 3.5 × 1.0 × 0.8 8847KR-31-016 9 10
grooves (all-ceramic) Oral groove: 2.0 × 1.0 × 0.8
Mandibular left central incisor Adhesive attachment, Facial groove: 4.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 8847KR-31-016 9
grooves (all-ceramic) Oral groove: 2.0 × 1.0 × 0.8
A3 All Adhesive attachment, Margin: 1.0 incisal from CEJ 878-31-010 9 38
wing/2 grooves Lingual reduction: 0.5 8878-31-010
(metal-ceramic), 8856-31-012
chamfer finishing line 8862-31-012
88011-31-021
F1 All Full crown (all-ceramic), Margin: 0.5 incisal from CEJ 828-31-030 5, 9 39
chamfer finishing line Margin depth: 0.8 6878-31-016
Incisal clearance: 1.5 8878-31-016
Axial convergence: 6° 379-31-023
379EF-31-023
F2 All Full crown (all-ceramic), Margin: 0.5 incisal from CEJ 828-31-030 5, 9 40, 41
rounded shoulder Margin depth: 1.0 847KR-31-016
finishing line Incisal clearance: 1.5 H336-31-016
Axial convergence: 6° 1089-31-012
379-31-023
379EF-31-023
F3 Maxillary left central Full crown (metal-ceramic Margin: 0.5 incisal from CEJ 828-31-030 5, 9 42
incisor and canine Facial: rounded shoulder Facial margin depth: 1.4 847KR-31-016
Oral: chamfer finishing line Lingual margin depth: 0.7 H336-31-016
Incisal clearance: 2.0 H283-31-012
Axial convergence: 6° H158-31-014
1089-31-016
379-31-023
379EF-31-023
*Manufactured by Brasseler (Savannah, Ga.).

abutment teeth.6,28,29 In contrast, a clinical evaluation
of different resin-bonded FPDs with 1560 abutments
found only 0.13% loss of vitality after 5 years.30
Although clinicians may believe that innovative
preparation designs are much less invasive than con-
ventional esthetic crown preparations, no studies have
quantified the tooth structure removal associated with
these preparations. The purpose of this study was to
gravimetrically quantify the amount of tooth structure
removed for anterior preparations for single tooth and
FPD retainers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Three different morphologies of artificial resin teeth
(maxillary left central incisor, maxillary left canine, and
mandibular left central incisor; Nissin Kilgore
International Inc, Coldwater, Mich.) were used for the
study. Due to the homogeneous structure of artificial
teeth, undesirable individual differences like morpho-
logic variation, extension of the pulp and dentin
tubules, and water content that would influence gravi-
metric (weight-based) measurements were avoided. A
standardized preparation technique was ensured due
to lack of decay and preexisting restorations. To
approximate the clinical situation, the teeth were pre-
pared on a Typodont model (Nissin Kilgore
International) with a missing maxillary right lateral
incisor.
Resin materials tend to absorb water depending on
storage conditions.31 This could affect the gravimetric
evaluation of resin teeth after preparation with tur-
bine/spray application. A pilot study therefore was
performed to measure the effect of storage conditions
on water uptake and weight change of the resin teeth.
In the first part of the pilot study, the relative
increase in weight after 10 days of water storage at
23°C was determined for 2 types of the unprepared
resin teeth: the maxillary and mandibular left central
incisors (10 per group). Their weight increased by
2.02% (mandibular left central incisor) to 2.61% (max-

MAY 2002 505

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 1. Edge-up preparation design on mandibular central.
Fig. 3. Anatomical crowns of maxillary left central incisors
with edge-up preparation design after root removal prior to
testing.
Fig. 5. Complete-crown preparation designs for maxillary
left central incisor (left to right): 0.8 mm circumferential
chamfer (F1), 1.0 mm rounded circumferential shoulder
(F2), 1.4 mm labial rounded shoulder and lingual 0.7 mm
chamfer (F3).
illary left central incisor). In the second part of the
pilot study, the pretreated teeth were stored at 60°C in
an incubator to evaporate the water uptake. The loss of
506
EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN
Fig. 2. Partial veneer preparation to reestablish canine guid-
ance.
Fig. 4. Porcelain veneer preparation designs (V2, V3, and
V4) for maxillary left central incisor.
weight by evaporation was determined after 12, 24,
and 48 hours and 1 week of storage in the incubator.
No significant weight decrease occurred when the
storage time exceeded 24 hours. Based on these
results, prior to the testing procedure, all resin teeth in
the study were prepared under turbine/spray applica-
tion and dried for at least 24 hours in an incubator
under the conditions just described.
Ten teeth per group were prepared by a single per-
son. The codes for the preparation designs and the
armamentarium employed in the present study are list-
ed in Tables I32-37 and II38-42 (Figs. 1 through 5).
When possible, a transparent template was employed
as a guideline for the preparation. The preparation
depth was controlled with the template and a scaled
periodontal probe (UNC15; Hu-Friedy, Chicago,
Ill.). Structure removal was determined exclusively for
the anatomical crown of the Typodont tooth.
Therefore, after completion of the preparation, the
CEJ area was marked, and the root was cut off with a
precision low-speed saw (Isomet, Buehler, Ill.) and
refined with a carbide cutter (H29DF-023; Brasseler,
VOLUME 87 NUMBER 5
EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Fig. 6. Tooth structure removal of maxillary left central Fig. 7. Tooth structure removal of maxillary left canine with
incisor with various preparation designs. various preparation designs. Columns marked with same
lowercase letter were not significantly different.

Savannah, Ga.) (Fig. 3). Prior to the determination of

weight in a high-precision balance (Type B6; E.
Mettler, Zürich, Switzerland), the prepared and decap-
itated anatomical crowns were cleaned with
isopropanol (70%) and dried with air pressure. The
mean weight of the unprepared, decapitated anatomi-
cal crowns (10 per tooth type) was employed as a
reference. The percentage of structure removal (Rs)
was calculated as follows:
W0 – W
Rs = × 100
W0
where W0 is the mean weight of 10 unprepared, decap-
itated anatomical crowns and W is the mean weight of
10 prepared, decapitated anatomical crowns. Means Fig. 8. Tooth structure removal of mandibular left central
incisor with various preparation designs.
and standard deviations for tooth structure removal
with different preparation designs were calculated and
analyzed with analysis of variance (P<.05).
(Fig. 8), and preparation A3 from 10.7% (Fig. 7) to
RESULTS
18.9% (Fig. 8). Analysis of variance showed no signifi-
The amount of tooth structure removal for the cant differences for the remaining preparation designs
preparation designs increased in the following order dependent on the tooth type employed. An overview
(mean % of typodont teeth): A1 (5.2), V1 (8.2), A3 comparison of structure removal associated with the
(14), V2 (16.7), V3 (22.1), V4 (30), F1 (64), F2 (70), tested preparation designs is given for a maxillary cen-
and F3 (71.9) (Figs. 6 through 8). The F3 design tral incisor in Figure 9.
could not be prepared on a mandibular central incisor
DISCUSSION
due to inadequate tooth structure in the gingival third
of the anatomical crown (Fig. 8). For single tooth Different methods have been described to measure
restorations, an F3 preparation required removal of the amount of tooth structure removal associated with
4.3 times more tooth structure than a V2 preparation preparation designs for metallic and metal-supported
and 2.4 times more tooth structure than a V4 prepa- ceramic restorations. Given its accuracy, ease, and sim-
ration. plicity, gravimetric analysis was employed to measure
For FPD abutment preparations, tooth structure tooth structure removal. It should be noted that in
removal varied from approximately 5% (A1) to 72% these ideal preparation designs, only the specific
(F3). The invasiveness of the preparation was signifi- requirements of the material were considered as a fac-
cantly (P < .05) influenced by tooth morphology: tor for tooth structure removal. Beyond that, other
Preparation V1 varied from 3.6% (Fig. 7) to 14.2% important clinical criteria controlled the preparation
(Fig. 8), preparation A1 from 3.1% (Fig. 6) to 8.9% design. This criteria included condition of the tooth,

MAY 2002 507

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 9. Comparison of structure removal associated with dif-
ferent preparation designs for maxillary left central incisor.
Pink areas represent proximal contact location.
esthetic and functional aspects, orientation of the
tooth, tooth retention, reconstruction of the occlu-
sion, and patient desires. In contrast to some
recommended clinical procedures,24 in the present
study, pilot grooves were employed only to create
reproducible standardized preparations.
The results of the present study suggest that the
minimally invasive veneer preparation offers a tremen-
dous advantage over conventional crown preparations.
Even for a complete veneer preparation (V4), less than
half the amount of the tooth structure was removed
compared to the most conservative complete crown
preparation (F1).
For resin-bonded prostheses, a large variety of
preparation designs have been reported.20,30 Wing-
shaped retainers with retentive elements (grooves)
have demonstrated a remarkable long-term success
rate when the clinical protocol was followed careful-
ly.20,30 These classic design principles cannot be
applied directly to resin-bonded prostheses made of
metal-free materials, as more removal of the tooth
structure is necessary to fulfill the specific require-
ments of greater bulk of framework materials.
Therefore, in many situations, wing-shaped retainers
cannot be used in limited space and dental enamel
must be preserved for successful bonding.17 These
complications have led to innovative preparation
designs, including the 2-groove design described by
Pospiech10 and evaluated in the present study.
508
EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN
Numerous publications have focused on prepara-
tions for all-ceramic crowns. These studies have been
contradictory with regard to the geometry of the
margin, angle of convergence, and extent of tooth
removal.11,39 In vitro investigations have shown that
a supporting structure with a high elastic modulus
increases the strength of all-ceramic crowns; the
residual dentin thickness after preparation therefore
may influence the life expectancy of the restoration.12
The authors of the present study believe that a prepa-
ration design that requires the removal of large
amounts of hard tooth structure must be rejected for
a number of reasons: exposure of dentin near the
pulp with a high proportion of dentin tubules,
increased secretion of dentinal fluid, adverse influ-
ence on the ratio of residual dentin to cavities (pulp
cavity, dentin tubules), increased risk of postoperative
sensitivity, and contraindication for young patients
with large pulps. A clinical study showed that a cham-
fer finish line only 0.8 mm deep with a maximum
convergence angle of 10 degrees was a relatively easy
and minimally traumatic complete-crown preparation
for heat-pressed glass-ceramic crowns.39 No adverse
effect on longevity was observed, in contrast to other
clinical studies on the same all-ceramic crowns with a
1.0- to 1.3-mm deep shoulder margin or 1.2- to 1.5-
mm depth.13-15
The tooth preparation classification system intro-
duced in this study is a comprehensive and systematic
method for describing a broad range of tooth prepa-
ration designs. The study results should be
considered for sound clinical tooth preparation
design criteria. Use of the tested innovative prepara-
tion designs may result in the conservation of sound
tooth structure and maintenance of tooth vitality in
comparison to traditional, more invasive fixed
prosthodontic designs.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the fol-
lowing conclusions were drawn:
1. When resin typodont teeth were evaluated, com-
plete-coverage all-ceramic and metal-ceramic crown
preparations required the removal of 63% to 72% (by
weight) of the total unprepared crown weight. Tooth
preparations for ceramic veneers (porcelain laminate
veneers) and resin-bonded prostheses removed 3% to
30% by weight of the crown.
2. For a single crown restoration, the tooth struc-
ture removal required for a metal-ceramic crown (F3)
was 4.3 times greater than for a ceramic veneer prepa-
ration (V2) and 2.4 times greater than for a complete
ceramic veneer preparation (V4).
3. The preparations for all-ceramic crowns (F1)
were approximately 11% less invasive than for metal-
ceramic crowns (F3).
VOLUME 87 NUMBER 5
EDELHOFF AND SORENSEN
REFERENCES
1. Creugers NH, Kayser AF, van’t Hof MA. A meta-analysis of durability
data on conventional fixed bridges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol
1994;22:448-52.
2. McLean JW. The cast metal-ceramic crown (design). In: McLean JW, edi-
tor. The science and art of dental ceramics. Chicago: Quintessence
Publishing Co Inc; 1980. p. 202.
3. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, editors. The metal-ceramic crown
preparation. In: Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis:
Mosby; 2001. p. 216-29.
4. Goldstein RE, editor. Tooth preparation in esthetic dentistry. In: Esthetics
in dentistry. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co; 1976. p. 336.
5. Ericson S, Hedegard B, Wennstrom A. Roentgenographic study of vital
abutment teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:981-7.
6. Schwartz NL, Whitsett LD, Berry TG, Stewart JL. Unserviceable crowns
and fixed partial dentures: life-span and causes foor loss of serviceabili-
ty. J Am Dent Assoc 1970;81:1395-401.
7. Kerschbaum T, Voss R. [Practical trial of crown and inlay.] Dtsch
Zahnärztl Z 1981;36:243-9.
8. Langeland K, Langeland LK. Pulp reactions to cavity and crown prepa-
ration. Aust Dent J 1970;15:261-76.
9. Faunce FR, Myers DR. Laminate veneer restoration of permanent
incisors. J Am Dent Assoc 1976;93:790-2.
10. Pospiech P, Rammelsberg P, Unsold F. A new design for all-ceramic
resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 1996;27:753-8.
11. Doyle MG, Goodacre CJ, Munoz CA, Andres CJ. The effect of tooth
preparation design on the breaking strength of Dicor crowns: 3. Int J
Prosthodont 1990;3:327-40.
12. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns
on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont
1993;6:462-7.
13. Lehner C, Studer S, Brodbeck U, Schärer P. Short-term results of IPS-
Empress full-porcelain crowns. J Prosthodont 1997;6:20-30.
14. Sorensen JA, Choi C, Fanuscu MI, Mito WT. IPS Empress crown system:
three-year clinical trial results. J Calif Dent Assoc 1998;26:130-6.
15. Fradeani M, Aquilano A. Clinical experience with Empress crowns. Int J
Prosthodont 1997;10:241-7.
16. Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive materials.
J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:382-91.
17. Crispin BJ. Enamel thickness. J Esthet Dent 1993;5:37.
18. Sorensen JA, Munksgaard EC. Relative gap formation of resin-cemented
ceramic inlays and dentin bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:374-
8.
19. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain
veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent 2000;28:163-77.
20. Creugers NH, Kayser AF, Van’t Hof MA. A seven-and-a-half year survival
study on resin-bonded bridges. J Dent Res 1992;71:1822-5.
21. Belser UC, Magne P, Magne M. Ceramic laminate veneers: continuous
evolution of indications. J Esthet Dent 1997;9:197-207.
22. Marinello CP, Schärer P. Resin-bonded etched cast extracoronal attach-
ments for removable partial dentures: clinical experiences. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 1987;7:36-49.
23. Nattress BR, Youngson CC, Patterson CJ, Martin DM, Ralph JP. An in vitro
assessment of tooth preparation for porcelain veneer restorations. J Dent
1995;23:165-70.
24. Magne P, Douglas WH. Additive contour of porcelain veneers: a key ele-
ment in enamel preservation, adhesion, and esthetics for aging dentition.
J Adhes Dent 1999;1:81-92.
25. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vuylsteke-Wauters M,
Vanherle G. Five-year clinical performance of porcelain veneers.
Quintessence Int 1998;29:211-21.
26. Jones JC. The success rate of anterior crowns. Br Dent J 1972;132:399-
403.
MAY 2002
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
27. Wolf JE, Hakala PE, Kolehmainen L, Jarvinen V. A follow-up study of
porcelain and acrylic jacket crowns. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1978;74:54-8.
28. Foster LV. Failed conventional bridge work from general dental practice:
clinical aspects and treatments needs of 142 cases. Br Dent J
1990;168:199-201.
29. Goodacre CJ, Spolnik KJ. The prosthodontic management of endodonti-
cally treated teeth: a literature review. Part I. Success and failure data,
treatment concepts. J Prosthodont 1994;3:243-50.
30. Paszyna C, Kerschbaum T, Marinello CP, Pfeiffer P. [Clinical long-term
results on patients with resin bonded fixed partial dentures.] Dtsch
Zahnärztl Z 1990;45:406-9. German.
31. Soderholm KJ. Degradation of glass filler in experimental composites. J
Dent Res 1981;60:1867-75.
32. Fischer J, Kuntze C, Lampert F. Modified partial-coverage ceramics for
anterior teeth: a new restorative method. Quintessence Int 1997;28:293-
9.
33. Glaser CG, Nagy WW. Restoration of canine disocclusion by using
etched porcelain onlays. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:338-40.
34. Magne P, Douglas WH. Interdental design of porcelain veneers in the
presence of composite fillings: finite element analysis of composite
shrinkage and thermal stresses. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:117-24.
35. Rouse JS. Full veneer versus traditional veneer preparation: a discussion
of interproximal extension. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:545-9.
36. Troedson M, Derand T. Effect of margin design, cement polymerization,
and angle of loading on stress in porcelain veneers. J Prosthet Dent
1999;82:518-24.
37. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AH, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Fracture load and
mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet
Dent 2000;83:171-80.
38. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Resin-bond-
ed fixed partial dentures. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd
ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997. p. 542-8.
39. Edelhoff D, Horstkemper TH, Richter EJ, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M.
[Bonded and non-bonded Empress 1-crowns. Clinical results after a four
year period.] Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 2000;55:326-30. German.
40. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, editors. Tooth preparation for all-
ceramic restorations. In: Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. St.
Louis: Mosby; 2001. p. 262-71.
41. Sorensen JA, Cruz M, Mito WT, Raffeiner O, Meredith HR, Foser HP. A
clinical investigation on three-unit fixed partial dentures fabricated with
a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent
1999;11:95-106.
42. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Preparations
for full veneer crowns. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed.
Chicago: Quintessence; 1997. p. 139-54.
Reprint requests to:
DR DANIEL EDELHOFF
DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS
SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY, MEDICAL CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF AACHEN
52974 AACHEN, GERMANY
FAX: (49)241-80-82410
E-MAIL: dedelhoff@ukaachen.de
Copyright © 2002 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.
0022-3913/2002/$35.00 + 0. 10/1/124094
doi:10.1067/mpr.2002.124094
509