cosmetic dentistry_ beauty & science International Edition

is permanently lost, which, as we know, can lead to many, even long-term, complications. We are primarily doctors and, in achieving patient satis- faction,wemustnotforgettheoverarchingobjec- tive, which is treatment, and this must be achieved by avoiding any harm to our patients. Of course, “aesthetics” is a relative notion, but it is we who, from the perspective of our profession and expe- rience, should shape the aesthetic desires of our patients and present the best solutions to them. Our activity in this respect is an art and it should be treated as such. In order to attain success in treatment, we have at our disposal an increasing choice of modern equipment, technologies and materials. Each technology requires human input. Contact with a person of similar sensibility and sense of aesthetics is essential; with a person who is able to understand and meet the often-high demands of the patient and the dentist. This person is the dental technician, who contributes equally to our success, the achievement of which is not possible without complete under- standing. His or her work should also be con- sidered an art. In the cases presented, the primary objective was to achieve the maximum aesthetic effect with minimally invasive treatment, especially because the cases concerned young patients. We wanted our work to be a harmonious and functional ad- dition to the patient’s smile, adapted to the indi- vidual case and not a replica of a standard matrix. In order to choose a method of treatment to achieve this goal, we considered each case ac- cording to the following: (a) case description; (b) analysis of the white and red aesthetics (analysis of the planned restoration aesthetics in the context of facial features, lip shape, smile lines and characteristics of the patient’s own teeth); (c) analysis of occlusion and articulation; (d) treatment plan and choice of material. Figs. 3a–c_Prepared stumps from teeth 12 to 22. Visible minimally invasive preparation of the enamel and no chamfer preparation of the gingival area. Figs. 4a–c_Fitting of the finished veneers showing visible ceramic shading around the gingival zone to about 0.1–0.2 mm. Figs. 5a–f_Comparison of the veneers before and after cementation. No visible veneer–stump junction after placement. The colour is the result of the colours of the veneers, cement and stumps. case report _ ceramic veneers I I 19cosmeticdentistry 1_2014 Fig. 4cFig. 4bFig. 4a Fig. 3cFig. 3bFig. 3a Fig. 5fFig. 5eFig. 5d Fig. 5cFig. 5bFig. 5a CDE0114_18-25_Michalik 11.06.14 14:05 Seite 2