PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the clinical performance of two different resin composites for luting IPS Empress inlays and onlays. METHODS:83 IPS Empress restorations were placed in 30 subjects. All restorations were inserted under rubber dam. 43 inlays/onlays were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement [RelyX Unicem (RX)]. A multistep adhesive (Syntac) was used with Variolink II low viscosity (SV) and served as control (n=40). The restorations were evaluated after 2 weeks: Baseline = 1st recall (R1), after 6 months (R2) and after 1 year (R3) by two calibrated examiners using the modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: From R1 to R3, one failure was noticed in the SV group (R2) due to marginal enamel chipping. After 1 year of clinical service, SV revealed significantly better results regarding color match and integrity inlay (Mann-Whitney U-test, P< 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between SV and RX for the remaining criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, P>0.05).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the clinical performance of two different resin composites for luting IPS Empress inlays and onlays. METHODS: 83 IPS Empress restorations were placed in 30 subjects. All restorations were inserted under rubber dam. 43 inlays/onlays were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement [RelyX Unicem (RX)]. A multistep adhesive (Syntac) was used with Variolink II low viscosity (SV) and served as control (n=40). The restorations were evaluated after 2 weeks: Baseline = 1st recall (R1), after 6 months (R2) and after 1 year (R3) by two calibrated examiners using the modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: From R1 to R3, one failure was noticed in the SV group (R2) due to marginal enamel chipping. After 1 year of clinical service, SV revealed significantly better results regarding color match and integrity inlay (Mann-Whitney U-test, P< 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between SV and RX for the remaining criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, P>0.05).
Authors: Roland Frankenberger; Julia Hehn; Jan Hajtó; Norbert Krämer; Michael Naumann; Andreas Koch; Matthias J Roggendorf Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 3.573
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