OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study evaluated the marginal quality of Lava Ultimate inlays in deep proximal cavities with and without proximal box elevation (PBE) before and after thermomechanical loading (TML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal cavities with proximal boxes beneath the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) were prepared in 24 human molars. Then, one of the proximal boxes was elevated with Filtek Supreme above the CEJ. The specimens were divided into three groups (n = 8). The inlays of group A were adhesively luted to the cavities with Scotchbond Universal and Rely X Ultimate, the inlays of group B with Monobond Plus, Syntac, and Variolink II, and the inlays of group C with Clearfil Ceramic Primer and Panavia SA Cement. Epoxy resin replicas were taken before and after thermomechanical loading (1,200,000 cycles, 55 °C/5 °C, max. load 50 N). Marginal integrity at the different interfaces tooth/PBE, tooth/dentine, inlay/PBE, inlay/dentine was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (×200). The percentage of continuous margin (% of total proximal margin length) was compared between the groups before and after TML. STATISTICS: Mann-Whitney U test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) before and after TML were found between the three groups for bonding the inlay to dentine or to PBE composite. CONCLUSIONS: The marginal integrities of bonding inlays directly to dentine are not different from bonding inlays to a proximal box, which has been elevated by a composite filling material. For deep proximal cavities, the PBE technique could be an alternative technique to conventional methods. Clinical research is needed to confirm.
OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study evaluated the marginal quality of Lava Ultimate inlays in deep proximal cavities with and without proximal box elevation (PBE) before and after thermomechanical loading (TML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal cavities with proximal boxes beneath the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) were prepared in 24 human molars. Then, one of the proximal boxes was elevated with Filtek Supreme above the CEJ. The specimens were divided into three groups (n = 8). The inlays of group A were adhesively luted to the cavities with Scotchbond Universal and Rely X Ultimate, the inlays of group B with Monobond Plus, Syntac, and Variolink II, and the inlays of group C with Clearfil Ceramic Primer and Panavia SA Cement. Epoxy resin replicas were taken before and after thermomechanical loading (1,200,000 cycles, 55 °C/5 °C, max. load 50 N). Marginal integrity at the different interfaces tooth/PBE, tooth/dentine, inlay/PBE, inlay/dentine was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (×200). The percentage of continuous margin (% of total proximal margin length) was compared between the groups before and after TML. STATISTICS: Mann-Whitney U test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) before and after TML were found between the three groups for bonding the inlay to dentine or to PBE composite. CONCLUSIONS: The marginal integrities of bonding inlays directly to dentine are not different from bonding inlays to a proximal box, which has been elevated by a composite filling material. For deep proximal cavities, the PBE technique could be an alternative technique to conventional methods. Clinical research is needed to confirm.
Authors: Giovanni Tommaso Rocca; Ladislav Gregor; Maria Jose Sandoval; Ivo Krejci; Didier Dietschi Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Paul Lambrechts; Elke Debels; Kirsten Van Landuyt; Marleen Peumans; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2006-05-18 Impact factor: 5.304