K F Leinfelder

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

Are you K F Leinfelder?

Claim your profile

Publications (139)187.66 Total impact

  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Markus B Blatz
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following article of a 2 part series provides a review of composite resin technology and demonstrates the application of core clinical concepts in the restoration of the maxillary anterior segment taking aesthetic consideration of the anatomic variations of the adjacent teeth to produce direct composite resin restorations in harmony with the surrounding dentition.
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Markcus B Blatz
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advancements in material research and adhesive technology have enabled the development of freehand bonding techniques that allow the preservation of remaining tooth structure and conservation of tooth structure during preparation-all while reinforcing the remaining tooth structure and improving the longevity and aesthetics of the restoration. In this article, the clinical concepts discussed were utilized with a recently developed composite resin material to restore the maxillary anterior dentition. Although the long-term benefits of this material remain to be determined, the utilization of this nanohybrid composite in this clinical presentation demonstrated an optimal functional and natural aesthetic result in the anterior region. Part 2 of this article will address the principles, techniques, and other considerations for achieving clinical success with direct posterior composite resin restorations.
    Dentistry today 09/2009; 28(8):49-50, 52-5; quiz 56.
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Markus B Blatz
    Dentistry today 08/2009; 28(7):122-3.
  • Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder
    Dentistry today 10/2008; 27(9):66, 68, 70 passim; quiz 73.
  • Dentistry today 11/2007; 26(10):130, 132-5; quiz 135, 129.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: New composites, called packable or condensable composites, are being promoted as amalgam alternatives. The purposes of this review article are to identify these products, define new terminology associated with them, summarize the advertised properties for the materials, discuss the ideal properties for packable composites, review the properties of the major products, and critically evaluate the proposed handling procedures for these materials.Review: The term packable is preferable to condensable for describing this new class of materials. All materials should be considered amalgam alternatives, not amalgam substitutes. The compositions and physical properties reported by manufacturers reveal that none of the materials represents a remarkable improvement over the properties of more traditional universal composites. The designs of Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer), ALERT (Jeneric-Pentron), and SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) are discussed in detail. The distinguishing characteristics of all packable compositions are less stickiness or stiffer viscosity than conventional composites, which allow them to be placed in a manner that somewhat resembles amalgam placement.Conclusions: Packable composites may allow more convenient placement in posterior sites and may offer some technique advantages over conventional composites. However, there is no evidence that their clinical properties are consistently better than those of conventional universal composites.
    Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 06/2007; 11(5):234 - 249. DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00405.x · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder
    Dentistry today 02/2007; 26(1):104, 106, 108-13; quiz 113, 115.
  • Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder
    Dentistry today 01/2007; 25(12):98, 100-4; quiz 104.
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Alejandro James
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advances in restorative material formulations and adhesive technology have expanded and created new treatment possibilities for dental practitioners. Due to this evolution, composite resins are being used with increasing frequency in posterior restorations. In order to successfully place these restorations, the clinician must understand the rationale for restorative material selection, preparation design, adhesive protocol, and composite resin placement. This article illustrates these considerations for placing a Class I posterior composite restoration.
    Practical procedures & aesthetic dentistry: PPAD 08/2006; 18(6):385-91.
  • Source
    DOUGLAS A. TERRY, KARL F. LEINFELDER
  • Source
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Chuck Maragos
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the literature has provided clinicians with some awareness of restorative material alternatives, such as laboratory-processed composite resin, these systems are not yet fully understood and implemented in daily practice, despite their benefits to dental patients. Whereas part I highlights treatment planning, preparation design, and impression making for an indirect resin onlay, this article emphasizes the laboratory fabrication as well as the involved adhesive bonding and finishing protocols. Additionally, it presents considerations for the selection of either indirect resin- or porcelain-based materials. Learning Objectives: This article emphasizes the laboratory fabrication and adhesive bonding and finishing protocols. Upon reading this article, the reader should: * Gain an understanding of the development of a posterior onlay fabricated of an indirect composite resin system. * Define the factors for selection of restorative materials for intracoronal restorations (porcelain and processed composite resin).
    Practical procedures & aesthetic dentistry: PPAD 08/2005; 17(7):449-54; quiz 456.
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Chuck Maragos
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The metallic restorative materials of the past required the dentist to focus on function and form because metal had no tooth-colored properties. The development of tooth-colored restorative materials has introduced a new element in the restorative equation--color. Unfortunately, many clinicians continue to apply a "metallic mentality" to restorative techniques with the newer adhesive restorative materials that can produce a tooth-colored appearance. With advances in material sciences and adhesive technology, the restorative concept now includes aesthetics as a variable in the restorative equation as well.
    Practical procedures & aesthetic dentistry: PPAD 07/2005; 17(5):313-8; quiz 320.
  • Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder, Chuck Maragos
    Dentistry today 01/2005; 23(12):78-80, 82, 84-5; quiz 85, 98.
  • Source
    Douglas A Terry, Karl F Leinfelder
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent developments in adhesive technologies, the design of composite resin materials, and contemporary placement techniques have revolutionized the delivery of minimally invasive direct restorations. The improved handling characteristics available from low-viscosity flowable systems, packable composites, and sculptable small-particle hybrid composites have expanded today's treatment options. In order to achieve a successful and natural-appearing direct composite restoration, the clinician must have a comprehensive knowledge of adhesive dentistry and an understanding of the optical properties of the natural tooth. This article describes a methodological approach for preparing, restoring, and finishing the maxillary central incisors with a small-particle composite. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: This article demonstrates the restoration of a Class IV fracture and discusses the anatomic variations of the adjacent teeth to produce a direct composite restoration in harmony with the surrounding dentition. Upon reading this article, the reader should: Be aware of the infrastructure considerations of a composite resin system. Recognize the role of composite resin on development of natural aesthetics and contour.
    Practical procedures & aesthetic dentistry: PPAD 05/2004; 16(3):235-42; quiz 244.
  • K F Leinfelder, A V Ritter
    Dentistry today 05/2001; 20(4):72-9.
  • K F Leinfelder
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The efforts of numerous clinical scientists have resulted in the development of tooth bonding systems that have changed the way clinical dentistry is practiced. The adhesion between polymeric restorative materials and dentin has been optimized to the point that little improvement can be expected within the next decade or even more. Already, the adhesion between the two substrates is greater than the inherent tensile strength of dentin itself. Improvements however, will undoubtedly occur in the manner in which the materials are used clinically. Such achievements are necessary to standardize performance as well as to eliminate postoperative sensitivity.
    Dental Clinics of North America 02/2001; 45(1):1-6.
  • K F Leinfelder, S Kurdziolek
    Dentistry today 02/2001; 20(1):36-8, 40-3.
  • S Kurdziolek, K F Leinfelder, A Delahaye
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although porcelain has predictably served the dental profession for more than 200 years, this class of restorative material has presented a number of clinically undesirable characteristics. As a result, during the past several years, major efforts have been made to enhance the mechanical and physical characteristics of polymers to better mimic porcelain for specific clinical applications. In recent years, Bis-GMA/barium-glass polymer systems have been developed to offer dental professionals a versatile restorative alternative to porcelain. This article details the material properties and clinical characteristics of one such system for the esthetic restoration of anterior and posterior teeth.
    Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J.: 1995) 01/2001; 21(12):1031-4, 1036, 1038; quiz 1040.
  • S M Kurdziolek, K F Leinfelder
    Dentistry today 11/2000; 19(10):100-2, 104-5.

Publication Stats

2k Citations
187.66 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 1975–2007
    • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      • • Department of Operative Dentistry
      • • School of Dentistry
      North Carolina, United States
  • 2000
    • New York University College of Dentistry
      New York City, New York, United States
  • 1987–2000
    • University of Alabama at Birmingham
      • • Division of Biomaterials
      • • School of Dentistry
      Birmingham, AL, United States
  • 1993–1995
    • Nagasaki University
      • School of Dentistry
      Nagasaki, Nagasaki, Japan
  • 1994
    • Osaka University
      Suika, Ōsaka, Japan
  • 1989–1991
    • University of Alabama
      Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States
  • 1982
    • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans
      • Division of Biomaterials
      New Orleans, Louisiana, United States