Literature DB >> 18792702

Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years.

Norbert Krämer1, Michael Taschner, Ulrich Lohbauer, Anselm Petschelt, Roland Frankenberger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate the effect of two different adhesive/resin composite combinations for luting IPS Empress inlays with a special focus on luting gap wear and marginal adaptation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the course of a controlled prospective clinical split-mouth study, 94 IPS Empress restorations were placed in 31 patients. The inlays were luted with EBS Multi + Compolute (EC; 3M ESPE) or with Syntac + Variolink II low (SV; Ivoclar Vivadent). At baseline and after 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 years, the ceramic restorations were examined according to modified USPHS codes and criteria. Thirty-five selected samples were investigated under an SEM regarding morphological changes; marginal quality analysis was carried out using a stereo light microscope, and luting composite wear was scanned with a profilometer.
RESULTS: Eight patients (including 25 restorations) missed the recalls; the recall rate at the last investigation was 72%. After 96 months of clinical service, seven restorations in five patients (six EC, one SV) had to be replaced due to hypersensitivities (n = 5) or inlay fractures (n = 2) resulting in a survival rate of 90%. Over the 8-year period, the restorations revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of surface roughness, color matching, proximal contact, sensitivity, or complaints (p > 0.05, Friedman test). Significant deteriorations were found for marginal integrity (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed for the different luting systems (p = 0.096, Log rank test/ Mantel Cox). Marginal analysis revealed no statistical difference among the materials (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test), however, the scans of the luting gap showed that Compolute was more prone to wear (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: For luting of ceramic inlays, no difference between the two luting systems was detectable. The overall failure rate after 8 years was 10%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18792702

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adhes Dent        ISSN: 1461-5185            Impact factor:   2.359


  11 in total

1.  Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.

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

2.  Bond strength of composite resin to glass ceramic after saliva contamination.

Authors:  Frank Nikolaus; Martin Wolkewitz; Petra Hahn
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Influence of different cusp coverage methods for the extension of ceramic inlays on marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro.

Authors:  Stephanie Krifka; Martin Stangl; Sarah Wiesbauer; Karl-Anton Hiller; Gottfried Schmalz; Marianne Federlin
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results.

Authors:  Roland Frankenberger; Christian Reinelt; Norbert Krämer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: study protocol for the CECOIA randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hélène Fron Chabouis; Caroline Prot; Cyrille Fonteneau; Karim Nasr; Olivier Chabreron; Stéphane Cazier; Christian Moussally; Alexandre Gaucher; Inès Khabthani Ben Jaballah; Renaud Boyer; Jean-François Leforestier; Aurore Caumont-Prim; Florence Chemla; Louis Maman; Cathy Nabet; Jean-Pierre Attal
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different resin cements to enamel and dentin.

Authors:  Ali Can Bulut; Saadet Sağlam Atsü
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 1.904

7.  Clinical Behavior of Ceramic, Hybrid and Composite Onlays. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

Review 8.  Cementation of Glass-Ceramic Posterior Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carline R G van den Breemer; Marco M M Gresnigt; Marco S Cune
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-18       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  A systematic review of outcome measurements and quality of studies evaluating fixed tooth-supported restorations.

Authors:  Devangkumar Rajnikant Patel; Tim O'Brien; Aviva Petrie; Haralampos Petridis
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 10.  Clinical performance of resin-matrix ceramic partial coverage restorations: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hanan Fathy; Hamdi H Hamama; Noha El-Wassefy; Salah H Mahmoud
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 3.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.