Purpose: To investigate, via questionnaire, how protocols for adhesive luting workflows of dental restorations are applied in three German-speaking countries. Material and Methods: A 47-item questionnaire gathered data on airborne particle abrasion (APA) unit characteristics, parameters, operating procedures, pretreatments in adhesive luting workflows for restorations, and participant demographics. The survey was distributed via trade journals, expert associations, universities, technical schools, and social media. Marginal absolute and relative frequencies were analyzed (95% confidence intervals), with Chi-squared tests comparing observed and expected frequencies (P0.05). Twenty-three experts voted on 23 recommendations regarding APA parameters and other pretreatments for bonding restorations. Results: A total of 267 participants completed the survey. Access to an APA unit was linked to a higher likelihood of performing APA before placement. Approximately half of the participants used APA in their practice. For zirconia restorations, 47.2% applied alumina APA at 50 µm/0.1 MPa, while 36.7% used the same settings for polymer-based restorations. For alloys, 37.5% employed 110 µm/0.2 MPa. These preferences correlated with age (≥30 years), experience (≥10 years), profession (dental technician/dentist), prior instruction/training, and daily APA use. Adhesives with MDP were used for zirconia (63.8%) and those with silane for silicate-based ceramics (55.9%). Agreement on recommendations ranged between 52% and 100%, with 21/23 reaching an average of 93%. Conclusion: Access to APA influenced clinical decisions and the feasibility of adhesive luting workflows. Adequate APA equipment in dental facilities is essential for quality care. Standardized protocols, training, and education across dental professions are necessary to enhance understanding and proper use of APA. Keywords: adhesive dentistry, airborne particle abrasion, parameter, surface conditioning, bonding, dental restoration

The utilization of additive manufacturing (AM) technology for the production of auricular prostheses has been widely acknowledged. However, few studies and case history reports have evaluated the esthetic outcomes of AM prostheses compared to those of conventionally manufactured prostheses. In this case history report, three manufacturing approaches- conventional, indirect, and direct mold preparation-were assessed for their esthetic outcomes in the same patient.

Objective: Dental erosion is a challenging problem. In addition to dental erosion's dental effects, general health also has to be taken into account. In particular, consumption of newly marketed beverages as well as psychosomatic and gastroesophageal disorders contribute to decayed dentitions. Without a comprehensive method for implementing preventive concepts in daily practice, many young adults will require large-scale, long-term treatment in the near future. Thus, dentists should be aware of preventative methods, prerequisites for rehabilitation, and treatment concepts available for such cases. Clinical Considerations: Patients with severe dental erosions are often young adults who suffer from hypersensitivity and loss of vertical dimension and occlusal structure. Modern ceramics enable a minimally invasive, esthetic, and rugged approach for achieving a complete rehabilitation. In particular, monolithic restorations using lithium disilicate or zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate seem to be promising treatment strategies. In addition to the dentist, the dental technician needs to be educated and experienced with complex occlusal and functional rehabilitation. Currently, clinical longterm experiences have only been reported for adhesively bonded silicate and lithium disilicate restorations. Conclusion: Heat-pressed and adhesively bonded monolithic lithium disilicate restoration fulfills all needs of complex treatment and long-term rehabilitation in young adults with dental erosion. Even if minimal tooth preparation is needed, in healthy teeth, adhesively bonded restorations require minimal thickness of the ceramic layer to obtain function, durability, and esthetics for this type of patient. Keywords: case report, complex rehabilitation, fixed restorations, in-vivo

A total of 163 monolithic restorations made from Vitablocs Mark II and luted adhesively or with resin cement were followed up for 3 to 70 months. Recall consisted of an evaluation of complete dental and hygiene status as well as quality assessment. Seven of 35 patients were lost to follow-up. Ninety-one percent of the 37 crowns, 23 partial crowns, and 89 inlays evaluated were in the posterior region. Combined survival estimate was 0.92 at the 48-month median observation time. Inlays and partial crowns performed well. Prevalence of complication and failure was highest for crowns (CP = 37.8%, FP = 21.6%). The results demonstrate that success relates to patient factors and restoration type, not luting protocol.