Joana Souza1, Mª Victoria Fuentes1, Eugenia Baena1, Laura Ceballos2. 1. Area of Stomatology, IDIBO Research Group, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avenida de Atenas s/n, 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. 2. Area of Stomatology, IDIBO Research Group, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avenida de Atenas s/n, 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. laura.ceballos@urjc.es.
Abstract
To compare the 1-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate and resin composite CAD/CAM onlay restorations. Twenty patients that required two restorations in posterior teeth, with at least one cusp to be covered, received two onlays. One was made with IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the other with Lava Ultimate (3M Oral Care). Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at baseline and 1 year after the onlays were cemented, according to FDI criteria. At each recall, digital photographs, bite-wing radiographs and impressions of the restorations were taken for SEM evaluation of the interface. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). At baseline and in the 1-year recall, both CAD/CAM materials exhibited excellent results in most criteria with similar esthetic, functional and biological properties (p > 0.05). However, deterioration in surface lustre (p = 0.020) and color match/translucency (p = 0.039) were detected for IPS e.max CAD onlays after 1-year. Under SEM evaluation, there were no statistically differences in micromorphological criteria at baseline nor after a year between IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays. Conclusion: After 1 year of clinical service IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays showed a similar clinical performance that needs to be confirmed in long-term evaluations.
To compare the 1-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate and resin composite CAD/CAM onlay restorations. Twenty patients that required two restorations in posterior teeth, with at least one cusp to be covered, received two onlays. One was made with IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the other with Lava Ultimate (3M Oral Care). Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at baseline and 1 year after the onlays were cemented, according to FDI criteria. At each recall, digital photographs, bite-wing radiographs and impressions of the restorations were taken for SEM evaluation of the interface. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). At baseline and in the 1-year recall, both CAD/CAM materials exhibited excellent results in most criteria with similar esthetic, functional and biological properties (p > 0.05). However, deterioration in surface lustre (p = 0.020) and color match/translucency (p = 0.039) were detected for IPS e.max CAD onlays after 1-year. Under SEM evaluation, there were no statistically differences in micromorphological criteria at baseline nor after a year between IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays. Conclusion: After 1 year of clinical service IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays showed a similar clinical performance that needs to be confirmed in long-term evaluations.
Authors: Kauê Collares; Marcos B Corrêa; Mark Laske; Enno Kramer; Bernd Reiss; Rafael R Moraes; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans; Niek J M Opdam Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 5.304