ABSTRACT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second part of this article series presents an evidence-based update of clinical protocols and procedures for cavity preparation and restoration selection for bonded inlays and onlays. More than ever, tissue conservation dictates preparation concepts, even though some minimal dimensions still have to be considered for all restorative materials. In cases of severe bruxism or tooth fragilization, CAD\/CAM composite resins or pressed CAD\/CAM lithium disilicate glass ceramics are often recommended, although this choice relies mainly on scarce in vitro research as there is still a lack of medium- to long-term clinical evidence. The decision about whether or not to cover a cusp can only be made after a multifactorial analysis, which includes cavity dimensions and the resulting tooth biomechanical status, as well as occlusal and esthetic factors. The clinical impact of the modern treatment concepts that were outlined in the previous article – Dual Bonding (DB)\/Immediate Dentin Sealing (IDS), Cavity Design Optimization (CDO), and Cervical Margins Relocation (CMR) – are described in detail in this article and discussed in light of existing clinical and scientific evidence for simpler, more predictable, and more durable results. Despite the wide choice of restorative materials (composite resin or ceramic) and techniques (classical or CAD\/CAM), the cavity for an indirect restoration should meet five objective criteria before the impression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n