A 45-year old female patient came to the office in need of a final restoration of the first upper premolar after initial endodontic treatment. The aim was to achieve an aesthetic result and to protect the weakened cusps of the premolar, which were at high risk of fracturing.
The continuous evolution of restorative materials has inevitably created a need for an expanded range of different cements. This has also resulted in an increased level of confusion about what cement may be the best choice to use. Whilst many dentists may have become loyal to one cement and use it for numerous procedures/indications, there is now, more than ever, a strong argument to be made for having multiple cements on hand. Today’s cement options allow dentists to choose a cement based on indication and desired bond strength, however, to date, there is still no “one size fits all” product out there. Some cements may share similar benefits, but that doesn’t mean they are the same or perfect for every indication. Not all cases are the same, so dentists have to ask themselves; “Is my go-to cement really the best for this indication? - Is there a better option in this case?”. Familiarising themselves with multiple cements could in fact make a world of clinical difference in their practice. In this clinical case, Dr Carlos Sabrosa uses two quite different cements, based on two very different substrates to achieve a highly acceptable clinical result.