pascal_magne

BRD begins with the fundamental premise that biomimetic restorative dentistry is rooted in the replication of a model—the natural tooth and the stomatognathic system. Accordingly, this module focuses on developing a deep understanding of biomechanics, tooth morphology, function (occlusion), esthetics, wear, aging, and biocorrosion. The hands-on component emphasizes tooth morphology through a series of practical exercises. A didactic 2D-to-3D approach will be used to develop morphological understanding through hyper-realistic tooth drawing and wax-up exercises, while reviewing the 14-point Esthetic Checklist for smile integration. The esthetic component is further enriched by exploring the concept of dynamic smile balance and strategies for managing visual tensions, in contrast to the static esthetics of the symmetrical and so-called “perfect” smile. The integration of the smile within the context of the individual’s face and personality will be illustrated using the Dentofacial Digital Diagnostic (DDD) tool. The course concludes with a tooth-by-tooth review of posterior morphology, together with essential concepts of occlusion and temporomandibular joint stability.

Who Should Attend:
Dentists and dental technicians of all experience levels, from recent graduates to seasoned practitioners.

--

THE COMPLEXITY OF SHRINKAGE STRESSES - Composite resins continue to shrink after light curing because shrinkage stress develops during and after the vitrification stage. This explains why post-bonding enamel cracks are often not visible immediately after restoration placement, but may appear more than 24 hours later. It is also well established that composite resins do not shrink toward the light source, but toward the surfaces to which they are bonded.

The ratio between bonded and unbonded surfaces, or C-factor, has been proposed as an indicator of clinically relevant shrinkage stress. Free, unbonded surfaces allow stress-relieving flow (deformation), which is not possible at bonded cavity walls. However, several additional factors must be considered:

Stress relief depends not only on free surfaces, but also on elastic deformation of the surrounding cavity walls, especially thin cusps. Strong adhesive systems can resist shrinkage stress despite high C-factors, but may transfer strain to surrounding tooth structure and induce hard tissue fractures.
Residual shrinkage stresses remain despite compensation strategies. Their magnitude is also related to restoration volume — the “V-factor” — which increases with the distance between the most distant points of the cavity. Even with sophisticated layering techniques or irradiation protocols, large restorations still generate significant deformation. Stress development is influenced by multiple interacting factors (conversion, shrinkage, elastic modulus, shape, and boundary conditions), and reducing polymerization shrinkage alone does not necessarily reduce stress effects. Volume and cavity size must therefore always be considered.
Because of the V-factor, reducing the volume of polymerizing composite resin is a valid strategy. This can be achieved by introducing non-shrinking components (“megafillers”), such as conventional GIC in the sandwich technique, prepolymerized inserts, some bulk-placed short-fiber reinforced materials, or by using semi-(in)direct and indirect restorations (inlays, onlays, veneers).