Five-Year Clinical Follow-Up
The patient returned for clinical and radiographic evaluation approximately five years after completion of treatment. Clinical examination revealed that all restorations remained functional and asymptomatic. The bonded lithium disilicate crown on tooth #46 demonstrated satisfactory marginal integrity with no evidence of debonding, fracture, or secondary caries.
The direct composite restorations on teeth #45 and #47 maintained acceptable anatomical form, proximal contacts, and occlusal function. Periodontal tissues surrounding the restored teeth appeared healthy, with no adverse effects associated with the Deep Margin Elevation procedure. Follow-up radiographs demonstrated stable periapical and restorative conditions with no evidence of recurrent caries or marginal breakdown. The patient reported complete satisfaction with both function and aesthetics.
Discussion
Successful quadrant rehabilitation often requires management of multiple defect configurations within the same treatment session. As demonstrated in this case, no single matrix system can predictably address every restorative challenge. Matrix selection should therefore be guided by the morphology and location of the defect rather than a one-system-fits-all approach.
The complex proximal-lingual defect in tooth #47 was managed using the Garrison ReelMatrix system, which provided circumferential adaptation and facilitated predictable reconstruction of the missing walls. In contrast, the Class II lesion in tooth #45 was restored using a sectional matrix system (FX175 band with Garrison 3D Fusion ring) to achieve optimal proximal contours and contact formation. For tooth #46, the presence of a deep subgingival margin necessitated the use of a dedicated Deep Margin Elevation (DME) matrix, allowing predictable margin relocation and simplifying subsequent adhesive procedures.
A key restorative principle throughout treatment was the conversion of complex cavity designs into simpler Class I configurations before final occlusal reconstruction. Immediate dentin sealing, wall reconstruction, and incremental composite placement facilitated improved control of polymerization stress while enhancing anatomical predictability. In extensive defects, incorporation of polyethylene fiber reinforcement may further contribute to stress distribution and restoration reinforcement.
The DME procedure played a critical role in the management of tooth #46. Relocating the deep cervical margin to a more accessible position simplified isolation, impression making, and adhesive cementation while preserving the surrounding periodontal tissues. Furthermore, the restorative strategy followed a biomimetic philosophy in which composite resin replaced lost dentin and a bonded lithium disilicate crown replaced enamel. The combination of adhesive procedures, fiber reinforcement, composite build-up, and bonded ceramic restoration created a cohesive restorative complex designed to preserve tooth structure while restoring function and biomechanics.
The favorable five-year clinical and radiographic follow-up demonstrated stable restorations, maintained proximal contacts and contours, healthy surrounding tissues, and absence of recurrent caries or restorative complications. These findings support the long-term predictability of combining appropriate matrix selection with contemporary adhesive restorative protocols in the management of complex restorative cases.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates how successful quadrant rehabilitation often requires the integration of multiple restorative strategies tailored to the specific defect configuration of each tooth. The use of three different Garrison matrix systems enabled predictable management of a conventional Class II restoration, a complex proximal-lingual defect, and a deep subgingival margin requiring Deep Margin Elevation (DME).
By combining adhesive restorative principles, immediate dentin sealing, fiber reinforcement, DME, and a bonded lithium disilicate crown, a biomimetic restorative approach was achieved while preserving maximum tooth structure. Careful matrix selection, meticulous isolation, and appropriate adhesive protocols were key factors in restoring form, function, proximal anatomy, and long-term restorative predictability. This case highlights that successful quadrant rehabilitation is not dependent on a single matrix system, but rather on selecting the right matrix solution for each clinical challenge.
The favorable five-year clinical and radiographic follow-up demonstrated stable restorations, maintained proximal contacts and contours, healthy surrounding tissues, and absence of recurrent caries or restorative complications. This case highlights that successful quadrant rehabilitation is not dependent on a single matrix system, but rather on selecting the appropriate matrix solution for each clinical challenge and combining it with sound adhesive restorative principles.
Featured in this Case Study

Reference
1. Magne P. Immediate dentin sealing: A fundamental procedure for indirect bonded restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2005;17(3):144-155.
2. Magne P, Douglas WH. Porcelain veneers: Dentin bonding optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 1999;12(2):111-121.
3. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current Clinical Concepts for Adhesive Cementation of Tooth-Colored Restorations. Practical Periodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry. 1998;10(1):47-54.
4. Bertoldi C, Monari E, Cortellini D, Generali L. Deep Margin Elevation: A systematic review and clinical considerations. Operative Dentistry. 2020;45(6):E336-E346.
5. Veneziani M. Adhesive restorations in the posterior area with subgingival cervical margins: New classification and differentiated treatment approach. European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry. 2010;5(1):50-76.
6. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Bonded indirect restorations for posterior teeth: From cavity preparation to provisionalization. Quintessence International. 2007;38(5):371-379.
7. Rocca GT, Rizcalla N, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Evidence supporting Deep Margin Elevation. Operative Dentistry. 2012;37(6):597-606.
8. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: A review of the literature. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2018;9(4):e12330.
9. Belli S, Cobankara FK, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, Karbhari V. The effect of fiber insertion on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with composite. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B. 2006;78B(1):73-80.
10. Magne P, Belser UC. Bonded Porcelain Restorations in the Anterior Dentition: A Biomimetic Approach. Quintessence Publishing; 2002.
11. Magne P, So WS, Cascione D. Immediate dentin sealing supports higher bond strength and improved restoration longevity. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2007;97(1):1-6.
12. Guess PC, Selz CF, Voulgarakis A, Stampf S, Stappert CFJ. Prospective clinical study of lithium disilicate all-ceramic crowns. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2013;26(5):435-442.
13. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses? A systematic review of survival and complication rates. Dental Materials. 2015;31(6):603-623.
14. Magne P. Biomimetic restorative dentistry: The bond of life. Quintessence Publishing; 2021.
15. Pascal Magne. Biomimetic Dentistry Mastership. Quintessence Publishing; selected chapters on IDS, stress distribution, and bonded indirect restorations.
|