Marília Pivetta Rippe1, Carlo Monaco2, Taiane Missau3, Vinícius Felipe Wandscher4, Lucia Volpe5, Roberto Scotti6, Marco Antonio Bottino7, Luiz Felipe Valandro8. 1. Adjunct Professor, Prosthodontics Unit, Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Brazil. Electronic address: mariliarippe@mail.ufsm.br. 2. Assistant Professor and Researcher, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Neuromotor, Division of Prosthodontics, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 3. Graduate student, Prosthodontics Unit, Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Brazil. 4. Adjunct Professor, Prosthodontics Unit, Faculty of Odontology, Franciscan University Center, Santa Maria, Brazil. 5. Master student, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Neuromotor, Division of Prosthodontics, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Neuromotor, Division of Prosthodontics, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 7. Professor, Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Unit, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José dos Campos, Brazil. 8. Associate Professor, Prosthodontics Unit, Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Brazil.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies that evaluate the survival rate and load to fracture of premolars restored with inlays produced using different methods are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the survival rate and fracture load of premolars restored with inlays fabricated using different methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty maxillary premolars were selected, embedded, and prepared to receive inlays fabricated using different methods (n=10): LaCom-digital scanning with Lava C.O.S. scanner (3M ESPE), followed by milling of composite resin block (Lava Ultimate; 3M ESPE) in a milling unit; CeCom-digital scanning with Cerec 3D Bluecam scanner (Dentsply Sirona), followed by milling of a Lava Ultimate block in Cerec (Dentsply Sirona); PresDis-impression with polyvinyl siloxane, inlay made using the lost wax technique, and IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) pressed ceramic (lithium disilicate). A dual-polymerizing resin cement system was used to lute the inlays. Inlays were mechanically cycled (2 Hz, 106 mechanical pulses, 80 N) after 24 hours, and the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 11 months. Then, a fatigue test was conducted using a 10-Hz frequency and 400-N load on the inner inclines of the cusps. The test was complete when the specimen fractured or when the specimen reached 1.5×106 cycles. The specimens that survived fatigue testing were submitted to a single-load fracture test in a universal testing machine and analyzed using a stereoscope for failure classification. Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test (Mantel-Cox). Fracture load data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were detected among the groups for the survival rate (P=.87) or for the load to fracture (P=.78). Most failures were longitudinal, catastrophic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Premolars restored with inlays fabricated using the tested methods had similar survival rates and loads to fracture.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies that evaluate the survival rate and load to fracture of premolars restored with inlays produced using different methods are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the survival rate and fracture load of premolars restored with inlays fabricated using different methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty maxillary premolars were selected, embedded, and prepared to receive inlays fabricated using different methods (n=10): LaCom-digital scanning with Lava C.O.S. scanner (3M ESPE), followed by milling of composite resin block (Lava Ultimate; 3M ESPE) in a milling unit; CeCom-digital scanning with Cerec 3D Bluecam scanner (Dentsply Sirona), followed by milling of a Lava Ultimate block in Cerec (Dentsply Sirona); PresDis-impression with polyvinyl siloxane, inlay made using the lost wax technique, and IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) pressed ceramic (lithium disilicate). A dual-polymerizing resin cement system was used to lute the inlays. Inlays were mechanically cycled (2 Hz, 106 mechanical pulses, 80 N) after 24 hours, and the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 11 months. Then, a fatigue test was conducted using a 10-Hz frequency and 400-N load on the inner inclines of the cusps. The test was complete when the specimen fractured or when the specimen reached 1.5×106 cycles. The specimens that survived fatigue testing were submitted to a single-load fracture test in a universal testing machine and analyzed using a stereoscope for failure classification. Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test (Mantel-Cox). Fracture load data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were detected among the groups for the survival rate (P=.87) or for the load to fracture (P=.78). Most failures were longitudinal, catastrophic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Premolars restored with inlays fabricated using the tested methods had similar survival rates and loads to fracture.