hero image
Wendy A. Clark, DDS, MS - UNC-Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, NC, US

Wendy A. Clark, DDS, MS Wendy A. Clark, DDS, MS

Assistant Professor, Restorative Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics | UNC-Chapel Hill


Dr. Clark is an expert in general and prosthodontic dentistry (dentures, implants and veneers).





Ronald E. Goldstein's Esthetics in Dentistry 3rd Edition loading image




Growing up, Wendy AuClair Clark saw first-hand the impact that a team of dental specialists (orthodontics, oral surgery, and prosthodontics) had on changing her younger brother’s life and his smile. Wanting to help people and make that same impact, she chose a career as a dental specialist.

Prosthodontics is the American Dental Association-recognized specialty of restoring and replacing teeth, both functionally and esthetically. After dental school, Dr. Clark completed a three-year residency in prosthodontics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where she was selected as chief resident her senior year and completed additional research and coursework to earn a Master’s of Science in clinical dentistry.

Dr. Clark is now a full-time assistant professor at the UNC-CH School of Dentistry’s Department Restorative Sciences.

Areas of Expertise (6)




General Dentistry

Dental Implants

Dental Education

Education (2)

Marquette University School of Dentistry: DDS

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry: MS

Affiliations (4)

  • American College of Prosthodontists
  • American Dental Association (ADA)
  • Delta Sigma Delta International Dental Fraternity
  • American Dental Education Association (ADEA)

Articles (7)

Abfraction, Abrasion, Attrition, and Erosion

Wiley Online Library

Ronald E. Goldstein DDS James W. Curtis DMD Jr Beverly A. Farley DMD Samantha Siranli DMD, PhD Wendy A. Clark DDS, MS


Throughout the years, the dental profession has held a variety of theories about the causes of tooth wear, including chemical wasting of the teeth, the effects of tooth brushing, and lateral forces. Tooth wear may present as abfraction, abrasion, attrition, and erosion. It is well established that the most common cause of attrition is bruxism. According to only a few clinical studies, cervical wear was related to erosion and abrasion rather than abfraction or occlusal loading. When treating a patient with worn dentition, it is essential to first diagnose the cause and the type of wear, and whether restorative space is available. As a profession, it is important that dentists recognize that anthropologic evidence related to tooth wear and the consequences of basic stomatognathic function on the longevity of teeth and restorations.

view more

The "Scalloped Guide": A Proof-of-Concept Technique for a Digitally Streamlined, Pink-Free Full-Arch Implant Protocol.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search databaseSearch term Search

Salama MA, Pozzi A, Clark WA, Tadros M, Hansson L, Adar P.


Abstract Inadequate restorative space can result in mechanical, biologic, and esthetic complications with full-arch fixed implant-supported prosthetics. As such, clinicians often reduce bone to create clearance. The aim of this paper was to present a protocol using stacking computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) guides to minimize and accurately obtain the desired bone reduction, immediately place prosthetically guided implants, and load a provisional that replicates predetermined tissue contour. This protocol can help clinicians minimize bone reduction and place the implants in an ideal position that allows them to emerge from the soft tissue interface with a natural, pink-free zirconia fixed dental prostheses.

view more

The clinical management of awake bruxism


Ronald E. Goldstein, DDS; Wendy Auclair Clark, DDS, MS


Awake bruxism is a common clinical condition that often goes undetected, often leading to pain or damaged teeth and restorations.

view more

Implant Practice

Dentistry Today

Wendy AuClair Clark, DDS, MS; David A. Garber, DMD; Maurice A. Salama, DMD; and Ronald E. Goldstein, DDS


Figure 1. The patient reception room at Goldstein, Garber & Salama. INTRODUCTION The clinicians of Team Atlanta have been placing and restoring im­plants for more than 20 years. Throughout this time, our team has seen many aspects of implant dentistry change and improve; the basic concepts for organizing, building, and maintaining a successful implant practice, however, remain the same. At our practice, this means building an effective team in order to provide an excellent patient experience. This article will focus on the administrative and clinical protocols followed in our implant practice at Goldstein, Garber & Salama (goldsteingarber.com).

view more

My first 100 days with TRIOS


Interview with Dr. Wendy AuClair Clark, DDS, MS

Whether regarding the markets hottest smart phone or something bigger, most owners of new technology will start out by critically scrutinizing their new piece of equipment. And Doctors just setting off with the TRIOS Digital Impression solution are no exception. Some say that the first 100 days is the perfect span of time needed in order to judge a sophisticated product. 100 days is not long enough to forget the learning stage, yet it is long enough to form a qualified opinion about functionality, usability, and results. The 100-day user will always be special – so we went out and found one for TRIOS – and asked for her verdict.

view more

Using Digital Workflow for Streamlined Processes

Inside Dentistry

Wendy AuClair Clark, DDS | Maurice Salama, DMD | Ronald Goldstein, DDS | David Garber, DMD


The advantages of the digital workflow are becoming increasingly evident, but are especially apparent with dental implants and other complex cases. Using a laboratory with the capability to digitally design and manufacture both provisional and final restorations, as well as the technology to scan and transmit traditional impressions, enables efficient and effective collaboration. This results in optimal treatment outcomes for patients, as is demonstrated in the two cases presented below.

view more

The Effect of Autopolymerizing Acrylic Resin Thickness on the Bond Strength of a Repaired Denture Tooth

Wiley Online Library

Wendy Auclair Clark DDS, MS, Yung‐Tsung Hsu DDS, MS


Purpose This study analyzed the conventional method of rebonding a denture tooth, evaluating the effect of varied thickness of autopolymerizing acrylic resin on the bond strength and the failure mode. Materials and Methods A total of 52 heat‐polymerizing acrylic resin specimens were fabricated with an anterior denture tooth. A cantilever‐type bending force was applied with a universal testing machine to each specimen until failure. The failure mode was determined, and cohesive failures were excluded from part II. Thirty specimens were randomly selected and divided into three groups (n = 10). For each group, resin was relieved from the bonding area to create a 0, 1, or 3 mm space. The tooth was repositioned using its matrix and reattached to its base, filling the relieved space with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The repaired specimens were tested using the same parameters. Data were analyzed with paired t‐tests, one‐way ANOVA, and post hoc test. Statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05. Results The mean peak load to failure for the part I group was 88.91 N. While the peak load to failure decreased to 71.96 N (19.69% loss of original bond strength), statistical analysis revealed no difference between the bond strength of the specimens repaired with a 0 mm thickness of autopolymerizing acrylic resin and the original (part I) group (p > 0.05). The bond strength was lower for the group repaired with a 1 mm thickness compared to the original (part I) group (p < 0.05), with 65.8 N load to failure (29.63% loss). The bond strength was even lower for the group repaired with a 3 mm thickness (p < 0.05), with 58.64 N load to failure (33.07% loss). Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between the 0 and 3 mm groups (p = 0.04). The most common failure mode in the original group was adhesive (56%), then combination (34%), then cohesive (9.8%). The repaired group (n = 30) had similar results, with 56.7% adhesive, 36.7% combination, and 6.7% cohesive failures.

view more