PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of extensive Empress onlays retained with resin-bonded cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty extensive ceramic onlays were placed in premolar and molar regions in 91 patients treated by 2 general practitioners between 1997 and 2000. Seventy-seven percent of the constructions were luted with chemically cured resin composite cement and 23% were luted with dual-cured resin cement. Fifty-nine patients with 81 restorations were clinically evaluated independently by 2 calibrated examiners using the California Dental Association protocol. The mean time in function for all restorations at examination was 49 months. RESULTS: Seventy-five (93%) onlays were still in function after 4 years. Six onlays (7.3%) failed; 1 had lost retention as a result of caries, and 5 had fractured. All failures were in molar regions. CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic onlay therapy is an acceptable treatment alternative over a 4-year period, but further long-term data are necessary before this treatment should be considered for general dental practice.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of extensive Empress onlays retained with resin-bonded cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty extensive ceramic onlays were placed in premolar and molar regions in 91 patients treated by 2 general practitioners between 1997 and 2000. Seventy-seven percent of the constructions were luted with chemically cured resin composite cement and 23% were luted with dual-cured resin cement. Fifty-nine patients with 81 restorations were clinically evaluated independently by 2 calibrated examiners using the California Dental Association protocol. The mean time in function for all restorations at examination was 49 months. RESULTS: Seventy-five (93%) onlays were still in function after 4 years. Six onlays (7.3%) failed; 1 had lost retention as a result of caries, and 5 had fractured. All failures were in molar regions. CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic onlay therapy is an acceptable treatment alternative over a 4-year period, but further long-term data are necessary before this treatment should be considered for general dental practice.
Authors: Marleen Peumans; M Voet; J De Munck; K Van Landuyt; A Van Ende; B Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Naia Bustamante-Hernández; Jose María Montiel-Company; Carlos Bellot-Arcís; José Félix Mañes-Ferrer; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Lucía Fernández-Estevan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Manuel Salvador Urcuyo Alvarado; Diana María Escobar García; Amaury de Jesús Pozos Guillén; Juan Carlos Flores Arriaga; Gabriel Fernando Romo Ramírez; Marine Ortiz Magdaleno Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2020-09-15
Authors: Carline R G Van den Breemer; Gerrit J Buijs; Marco S Cune; Mutlu Özcan; Wouter Kerdijk; Stephan Van der Made; Marco M M Gresnigt Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573