Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical split-mouth evaluation of partial ceramic crowns luted with a new, universal adhesive system/resin cement: results after 18 months

Abstract

Objectives A new universal adhesive with corresponding luting composite was recently marketed which can be used both, in a self-etch or in an etch-and-rinse mode. In this study, the clinical performance of partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) inserted with this adhesive and the corresponding luting material used in a self-etch or selective etch approach was compared with a self-adhesive universal luting material. Material and methods Three PCCs were placed in a splitmouth design in 50 patients. Two PCCs were luted with a combination of a universal adhesive/resin cement (Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) with (SB+E)/without (SB−E) selective enamel etching. Another PCC was luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2, 3M ESPE). Forty-eight patients were evaluated clinically according to FDI criteria at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 months. For statistical analyses, the chi-square test (α = 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier analysis were applied. Results Clinically, no statistically significant differences between groups were detected over time. Within groups, clinically significant increase for criterion Bmarginal staining^was detected for SB−E over 18 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly higher retention rates for SB+E (97.8 %) and SB−E (95.6 %) in comparison to RXU2 (75.6 %). Conclusion The 18-month clinical performance of a new universal adhesive/composite combination showed no differences with respect to bonding strategy and may be recommended for luting PCCs. Longer-term evaluation is needed to confirm superiority of SB+E over SB−E. Clinical relevance At 18 months, the new multi-mode adhesive, Scotchbond Universal, showed clinically reliable results when used for luting PCCs.

Clinical evaluation of chairside‐fabricated partial crowns composed of zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate ceramics: 3‐year results of a prospective practice‐based study

“…In the present study, no debonding of the restorations could be detected during the course of the study. This finding is in accordance with the findings of other studies that reported the clinical performance of ceramic partial crowns luted with dual‐curing composite cements in combination with a selective or total‐etch technique, which demonstrated debonding rates of 0% to 3.6% for identical observational periods …”

“…Feldspathic ceramics (eg, Vita MKII, Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co.KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany) were the first class of materials that were used for the production of chairside‐fabricated partial crowns (CCPCs) . Various clinical studies using CCPCs fabricated from feldspathic ceramics have identified material fractures as the primary cause of failure for posterior restorations . In recent years, new materials with improved mechanical properties have been developed (eg, leucite‐reinforced glass ceramics (IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) or lithium disilicate ceramics (IPS.e.max, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)) to increase the fracture resistance and, thereby, reduce the risk of material‐related clinical failures .…”

“…Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated a significant effect of the cementation technique on the survival and success rates of CCPCs. In particular, the usage of self‐adhesive cements with and without selective enamel etching was shown to be a significant factor for the observed debonding rates . Based on these findings, it was concluded that adhesively luted partial CCPCs (with a selective or total‐etch technique) perform better than CCPCs luted with self‐adhesive cements.…”

Longevity of indirect restorations cemented with self‐adhesive resin luting with and without selective enamel etching. A Systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…After title and abstract screening, seven studies were selected by eligibility and this number was reduced to two after eligibility criteria application. Five studies were excluded for the following reasons: (a) overlapping data and (b) no comparison between indirect restoration cemented with self‐adhesive resin cement after selective enamel etching to the without selective enamel etching group . Two different studies remained for qualitative and quantitative synthesis …”

“…Five studies were excluded for the following reasons: (a) overlapping data [18][19][20][21] and (b) no comparison between indirect restoration cemented with self-adhesive resin cement after selective enamel etching to the without selective enamel etching group. 22 Two different studies remained for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. 23,24 The characteristics of the two studies selected are listed in Table 2.…”