St. Barth Dental Association – Our 21st Anniversary Conference

Jan 19-23, 2015

Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, Materials Selection, and Rehabilitation of Patients with Esthetic and Reconstructive Needs

The multitude of restorative options in modern dentistry is confusing both to practitioners and patients. From the choice of simple direct restorations (Amalgam? Tooth colored?) to selecting extensive treatment with either fixed, removable, or implant supported restorations, the decision is not simple. Esthetic outcome, longevity, minimal discomfort and moderate cost are some of the main considerations for the patient. But the practitioner must consider other factors as well: Which combination of treatment method and materials will lead to the optimal results? Is a more involved option better than a less invasive plan? Can a specific material yield a more natural looking restoration? How to select a product from a long list of similar materials? 

With regard to patients with esthetic concerns, the treatment course may be rather demanding. The diagnosis, treatment plan, and successful implementation can be far more complex than conventional treatment. The anterior maxillary segment is one of the most demanding areas of transformation. The patient’s concerns are often subjective and can be easily misunderstood by the dentist. A visual examination is usually the only diagnostic tool, and the shape, color, proportions, and arrangement of the teeth are used in determining the correct treatment path.

Current all-ceramic systems hold potential for high esthetics but show limitations with heavy occlusions or fixed partial dentures (bridges). New CAD-CAM technology has helped introduce a generation of ceramics with mechanical properties that are far superior to conventional ceramics. Modern direct resins have also improved considerably, perhaps making the indirect resins less essential. Conventional ceramo-metal restorations are strong and relatively predictable but high strength ceramic copings and frameworks are sufficiently strong for bridges as well, yet the material (Zirconia) is less expensive than noble metal and the CAD-CAM fabrication method can save time and cost. Yet, there are aspects to these new materials (i.e. cementing, adjustments, removal, etc.) that need to be further explored.

Non vital teeth require specific treatment considerations. The traditional cast post is far less desirable in many situations and newer treatment options offer many alternatives. With anterior restorations metallic posts are of concern due to the likelihood of discoloration. Tooth colored posts (Composite, Zirconia) are treatment options and one has to know their strengths and limitations.

The course reviews restorative techniques from simple single tooth restorations to full arch and full mouth reconstructions. Contemporary conservative restorative methodologies and fixed prosthodontic treatment methods will be demonstrated with clinical cases. Various material systems will be compared for their strengths, indications, limitations, and proper use.

The following subjects will be addressed:

  • Satisfying the esthetically compromised patient (part 1 & 2)
  • Update on innovative materials and digital techniques
  • Update on restoring pulpless teeth
  • Successful veneer restorations – prescription for durable results

Educational Objectives:

After completing the course participants should be more proficient in:

  • Understanding and selecting modern direct, bulk-fill, flowable, and machinable restorative resins.
  • Recognizing the strengths and limitations of new ceramic and CAD-CAM technology.
  • Familiarity with modern cements and proper cementing techniques – how do they compare?
  • Restorative considerations and new treatment options for pulpless tooth (how good are the new esthetic posts).
  • Assessing, treatment planning, and treating patients with restorative needs and esthetic concerns.


Our continuing education credits have been certified by the NJ State Board of Dentistry.

We’ve been approved by several state boards including NJ, MD, MA, MI and have never been rejected by any state. If you supply us with your state board’s address we will apply to your state.


Dan Nathanson
View bio