Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

The adhesively bonded ceramic restorations presented satisfactory results after five years of clinical service. There was no significant difference between ceramic systems regarding survival. SUMMARYThis study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rate

Longevity of ceramic onlays: A systematic review

“…In situations where multiple follow‐up papers were published by the same research group, the most recent paper was selected. This led to the exclusion of an additional 17 articles (Table ) . Reviewing the references of the remaining 17 articles disclosed additional 4 articles suitable for inclusion.…”

Considerations for Altering Preparation Designs of Porcelain Inlay/Onlay Restorations for Nonvital Teeth

“…The thickness of the ceramic is an important factor to prevent its fracture. The recommended minimum thickness of 1.5 mm should be observed from the bottom apical area of the cavity to the central fossae to improve strength . According to van Dijken et al, a cuspal overlay should ideally permit a material thickness of 2 mm …”

Influence of different adhesive protocols on ceramic bond strength and degree of conversion of resin cements

“…Since proper adhesive bonding is a determinant factor regarding long-term success of several ceramic restorative procedures in dentistry [2,3,[5][6][7][26][27][28][29] different resin cements were evaluated in an attempt to obtain further information about their behavior when distinct adhesive protocols and ceramic types are employed. Two-way ANOVA revealed that the adhesive protocols tested (p o0.001) and the different ceramic systems influenced ceramic bond strength.…”

“…In order to obtain acceptable clinical results, it is imperative that a strong and a stable link between the ceramic restoration and the tooth structure be created [6]. As a consequence, resin cements are the material of choice for adhesive luting of all ceramic restorations [6][7][8]. Ceramics used for dental restorations are brittle materials with high elastic modulus [9] that rely on the retention and support derived from micro-mechanical and/or chemical bonding of the luting agent to the tooth substrate [6].…”