Objective To evaluate the clinical performance of hybrid ceramic inlay‐onlay restorations over a 2‐year period. Clinical Considerations A total of 30 lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LDC; control group) and 30 hybrid ceramic (HC; test group) inlay/onlay restorations were performed in 14 patients. Clinical evaluations were performed after 1 week, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years of cementation according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, gingival index, and plaque index. The Friedman test was used for the significant difference in time and Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for the determination of differences. The clinical parameters, gingival and plaque indexes differences in time were analyzed with Chi‐square test. No statistically significant difference (P > .05) was found between the two groups in the modified USPHS, gingival index, and plaque index evaluations, whether statistically significant differences were found within groups. The total survival rate was 100% for both groups after 2 years. Conclusion Based on the 2‐year data, the tested HC can be considered a reliable material for inlay/onlay restorations. Clinical Significance The results of this in vivo study suggest that both resin nanoceramic materials and LDC materials have been successfully incorporated in treatments of inlay and onlay restorations. Short‐term results showed that resin nanoceramic materials can be counted as a good choice in inlay and onlay restorations in an effort to reduce the treatment time associated with ceramic firing processes.

No abstract

Objectives To evaluate the long‐term clinical performance and survival rate of pressable lithium‐disilicate glass‐ceramic veneers (LDSVs). Materials and Methods A total of 413 LDSVs were bonded to anterior and posterior teeth by three experienced clinicians between 1998 and 2012. The LDSVs were examined for color/ esthetic match of the glass‐ceramic surface (esthetic evaluation), fracture rate, marginal discoloration (staining of the luting cement), and marginal integrity (including caries, clinical evaluation). For clinical and esthetic evaluations, the modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) score was used in this study. The success rate was determined with a Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis. Results The mean observation time was 11.33 ± 4.85 years. There was no loss to follow‐up, all restorations were accounted for in the final analysis. The probability of survival of the 413 veneers was 98% after 5 years, 95% at 10 years, 91% at 15, and 87% at 20 years, indicating a very low clinical failure rate. Of the 413 restorations, complications were occurred in 15 (3.63%) of all restorations, and fractures and debonding in 6 (1.45%) and 9 (2.18%), respectively. Conclusions The LDSVs showed high survival rate and very good results for color match and anatomic form and marginal integrity in the long‐term analysis. Clinical Significance The long‐term performance of LDSVs can be considered as highly favorable when carefully planned.

No abstract

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric dimensional accuracy and stability of polyvinylsiloxane, polyether and new formulated polyvinylsiloxanether impression materials by using micro-computed tomography. Methods: A total of 42 impressions were made of stainless steel metal dyes. Polyvinylsiloxane, Polyether and Polyvinylsiloxanether impressions were taken for volumetric dimensional accuracy and stability to measure by Micro-computed tomography (µCT). Impression materials were measured for dimensional stability after the impression was taken, 24 hours later and 144 hours later. For dimensional accuracy 21 impressions and 21 stone models of these impressions were measured. One-way analysis of variance was be used to test for statistically significant difference within groups and Tukey's test was be used to test for across groups with a significance value of p < 0.05. Results: After polymerization, although polyether impression negative was shown to have the highest volumetric expansion, the highest shrinkage was observed in the same group after pouring to dental stone. Stone model of the polyether was observed as the most accurate value of volume in comparison to the master model. The lowest volumetric dimensional change was observed in polyvinylsiloxanether at day 1 (-0.004±0.001%) and the highest change was observed in polyether at day 7 (-0.052±0.004%). Conclusion: From the standpoint of volumetric accuracy and stability, all three elastomeric impressions are acceptable and µCT is a useful tool for assesments of volumetric dimensional changes.