Fig. 1

1brighter.jpg (9215 bytes)
Figure 1: Judging by the extent of corrosion, amalgam restorations on maxillary second premolar and second molar teeth were probably fabricated from a conventional amalgam alloy. The one on the first molar shows much less corrosion, indicating that it could have been made from a high-copper amalgam alloy.








Fig. 2

2.jpg (16139 bytes)
Figure 2: Left maxillary first molar of a 12-year-old girl with lost amalgam restoration and evidence of recurrent caries.









Fig. 3

3.jpg (16357 bytes)
Figure 3: Cavity preparation for an adhesive resin composite onlay restoration.














Fig. 4

4.jpg (15662 bytes)
Figure 4: The dentist-fabricated onlay restoration seated on the stone model.















Fig. 5

5.jpg (17849 bytes)
Figure 5: Occlusal adjustment was done after rubber dam removal.










Fig. 6

6.jpg (83958 bytes)
Figure 6: View of the cemented onlay restoration two years after placement.










Fig. 7

7.jpg (20244 bytes)
Figure 7: This massive carious lesion on lower first molar tooth occurred underneath an existing amalgam restoration.










Fig. 8

8.jpg (16392 bytes)
Figure 8: After three months of pulp-capping, the tooth was prepared to receive an onlay ceramic restoration.










Fig. 9

9.jpg (15907 bytes)
Figure 9: View of the cemented IPS Impress onlay restoration nine months after placement.









Fig. 10

10.jpg (17393 bytes)
Figure 10: This maxillary first molar presented with a combined amalgam/resin composite restoration with evidence of breakdown.








Fig. 11

11.jpg (16150 bytes)
Figure 11: Completed cavity preparation for an adhesive resin composite restoration.









Fig. 12

12.jpg (14694 bytes)
Figure 12: Completed direct resin composite restoration eight months after placement.









Fig. 13

13.jpg (17444 bytes)
Figure 13: Large resin composite restorations on maxillary premolars eight years after placement. These were made using the material P-50 (3M).