Indirect restorative systems—A narrative review

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe background and clinical understanding of the properties of currently available indirect restorative systems and fabrication methods is, along with manufacturer and evidence‐based literature, an important starting point to guide the clinical selection of materials for tooth and/or implant supported reconstructions. Therefore, this review explores most indirect restorative systems available in the market, especially all‐ceramic, along with aspects of manufacturing process, clinical survival rates, and esthetic outcomes.OverviewProgressive incorporation of new technologies in the dental field and advancements in materials science have enabled the development/improvement of indirect restorative systems and treatment concepts in oral rehabilitation, resulting in reliable and predictable workflows and successful esthetic and functional outcomes. Indirect restorative systems have evolved from metal ceramics and polymers to glass ceramics, polycrystalline ceramics, and resin‐matrix ceramics, aiming to improve not only biological and mechanical properties, but especially the optical properties and esthetic quality of the reconstructions, in attempt to mimic natural teeth.ConclusionsBased on several clinical research, materials, and patient‐related parameters, a decision tree for the selection of indirect restorative materials was suggested to guide clinicians in the rehabilitation process.Clinical SignificanceThe pace of materials development is faster than that of clinical research aimed to support their use. Since no single material provides an ideal solution to every case, professionals must continuously seek information from well designed, long‐term clinical trials in order to incorporate or not new materials and technological advancements.