Fig.1
Her chief complaint was to treat the wear of her frontal and posterior teeth. She also wanted her teeth to look better, whiter but still natural-looking.

Fig.2
Occlusal view of the mandible, showing severe dental wear in the posterior area.

Fig.3
Occlusal view of the maxilla, showing severe tooth wear affecting both the anterior and posterior dentition.

Fig.4
Initial orthopantomography showing the worn dentition of this young patient.

Video.1
Video illustrating the treatment design. This simulation enables both the clinician and the patient to better understand the advantages and limitations of the proposed treatment.

Fig.5
Beginning of the pre-prosthetic orthodontic treatment. The main treatment objectives were intrusion of the lower anterior teeth to create space for the ceramic restorations, correction of tooth misalignment, dental axes and gingival zeniths in the maxillary anterior region, and correction of the dental midline.

Fig.6
Final outcome after 21 weeks of orthodontic treatment with Clarity™ Aligners. All treatment objectives were successfully achieved.

Fig.7
Orthopantomography after the Clarity Aligner therapy.

Fig.8
Initial and post-orthodontic treatment views of the mandibular anterior teeth.

Fig.9
Comparison between the treatment design and the clinical situation before and after Clarity™ Aligner therapy.

Fig.10
Digital wax-up showing the superimposition of the wax-up and the post-orthodontic situation.

Fig.11
Digital wax-up—frontal view (overlay with the post-orthodontic situation). The minimum space required for the ceramic restorations was achieved through intrusion of the lower anterior teeth and repositioning of the remaining teeth.

Fig.12
Additive digital wax-up of the mandibular arch—occlusal view.

Fig.13
Additive digital wax-up of the maxillary arch—occlusal view.

Fig.14
Gingivectomy and direct mock-up performed to improve tooth proportions.

Fig.15
Direct esthetic and functional mock-up. Functional movements, including protrusive and lateral excursions, were re-established with the aid of the mock-up.

Video.2
Video showing the worn mock-up and the clinical situation after preparation through the mock-up, allowing for a minimally invasive approach.

Fig.16
Comparison between the post-orthodontic clinical situation and the minimally invasive tooth preparations in both arches.

Fig.17
Ceramic restorations on a printed model. Feldspathic ceramic restorations were used from teeth 35 to 45, while monolithic lithium disilicate restorations were used for the molars.

Fig.18
Ceramic restorations on a printed model. Feldspathic ceramic restorations were used from teeth 15 to 25, while monolithic lithium disilicate restorations were used for the molars.

Fig.19
Lateral view of the all-ceramic restorations, demonstrating natural esthetic and functional integration.

Fig.20
Adhesive cementation of all ceramic restorations.

Fig.21
Comparison between the initial situation and the final outcome—frontal view of the maxillary arch.

Fig.22
Comparison between the initial situation and the final outcome—frontal view of the mandibular arch.

Fig.23
Frontal comparison of the initial and final situations, highlighting the advantages of orthodontic pretreatment. This approach preserved an appropriate overbite while correcting the midline, dental axes, and gingival zeniths.

Fig.24
Final orthopantomography after Clarity™ Aligner therapy and prosthetic rehabilitation.

Fig.25

Conclusions

Through the integration of orthodontic treatment, this case demonstrates how conservative dentistry can achieve predictable functional and esthetic outcomes. Orthodontic alignment created the space required for restorative treatment without aggressive tooth reduction, enabling the use of modern ceramic materials within a minimally invasive, patient-centered approach that preserved natural tooth structure.

Bibliography

1. Vaupel JW. Biodemography of Human Ageing. Nature 2010;464(7288):536-542.
2. Schlueter N, Luka B. Erosive tooth wear – A review on global prevalence and on its prevalence in risk groups. Br Dental J 2018;224(5):364-370.
3. Debora R. Vilaboa et al.. Tooth Wear The Quintessential Challenge. Quintessence Publishing 2023.
4. Gresnigt M, Ozcan M. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth with porcelain laminates and sectional veneers. J Can Dent Assoc. 2011;77:b143.
5. Francesco De Angelis, Camillo D’Arcangelo, Roberta Angelozzi, Mirco Vadini. Retrospective clinical evaluation of a no-prep porcelain veneer protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Jan;129(1):40-48.
6. Camillo D’Arcangelo, Mirco Vadini, Maurizio D’Amario, Zaccheo Chiavaroli, Francesco De Angelis. Protocol for a new concept of no-prep ultrathin ceramic veneers. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2017;30(8).
7. Pascal Magne, Joseph Hanna, Michel Magne. The case for moderate „guided prep“ indirect porcelain veneers in the anterior dentition. The pendulum of porcelain veneers preparation: from almost no-prep to over-prep to no-prep. The European journal of Esthetic Dentistry 2013;8(3).
8. Amélie Karine Jacques Mainjot, Carole Charavet. Orthodontic-assisted one step- no prep technique: A straightforward and minimally-invasive approach for localized tooth wear treatment using polymer-infiltrated ceramic network CAD-CAM prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020 Oct;32(7):645-661.
9. Oudkerk J, Sanchez C, Grenade C, Vanheusden A, Mainjot A. The One-step No-prep technique for non-invasive full-mouth rehabilitation of worn dentition using PICN CAD-CAM restorations: Up to 9-year results from a prospective and retrospective clinical study. Dent Mater. 2025 Apr;41(4):414-424.