PMC3335604_01
Occlusal aspect of biologic restoration immediately after completion.
CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.001.jpg
PMC3335604_01_CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.001.jpg
fig1
Because of extensive coronal destruction involving the occlusal, buccal, and lingual surfaces, the treatment of choice was biologic restoration using a deciduous molar crown obtained from the tooth bank at the same institution (Figure 1).
Clinical aspect: (a) biologic restoration after 5 years of followup and (b) resin composite restoration after 4 years of followup, both presenting good outcomes during clinical exam.
CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.002.jpg
PMC3335604_01_CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.002.jpg
fig2
Clinical evaluation (Figure 2) using USPHS criteria was performed by one trained investigator, and the results are shown in Table 1. 
Radiographic evaluation: (a) initial and (b) final radiographs of biologic restoration; (c) initial and (d) final radiographs of resin composite restoration.
CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.003.jpg
PMC3335604_01_CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.003.jpg
fig3
Figure 3 shows absence of microleakage according to follow-up radiographs of the 2 restorative techniques. Finally, Figure 4 shows the restoration interface of 2 teeth using an SEM.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at various magnifications: (a) tooth-restoration interface of biologic restoration with no evidence of microleakage after 5 years of followup and (b) tooth-restoration interface of resin composite restoration after 4 years of followup evidencing a good clinical result despite presence of a gap in 1 of the facets.
CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.004.jpg
PMC3335604_01_CRIM.DENTISTRY2011-515713.004.jpg
fig4
Figure 3 shows absence of microleakage according to follow-up radiographs of the 2 restorative techniques. Finally, Figure 4 shows the restoration interface of 2 teeth using an SEM.