Evaluation of two different CAD‐CAM inlay‐onlays in a split‐mouth study: 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Abstract

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.

A randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of two resin cement systems in the adhesion of CAD/CAM‐fabricated resin nanoceramic restorations: 18‐month preliminary results

“…39 However, in a clinical study, no debonding was evident in restorations within 2 years, after cementation of 30 IPS e.maxCAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) and 30 Cerasmart (GC) restorations using an etch-and-rinse adhesive resin cement (Variolink Aesthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent). 40 In the present study, neither debonding nor fracture was observed in restorations that had been cemented with the self-adhesive resin cement. Although debonding occurred in two restorations in the GCL group, there was no significant between-group difference.…”

Chairside CAD/CAM Materials: Current Trends of Clinical Uses

“…The resistance to bending force is reported for Cerasmart of 230 MPa, and this material is indicated for the restoration of a single tooth (cuspidal coatings, indents, and crowns). Recent clinical work demonstrates its use with suitable results for two-year inlays and onlays compared to lithium disilicate [ 40 ].…”

Marginal Adaptation of CAD/CAM Restorations: A Systematic Review

“…onlays in a split-mouth study: 2-year clinical follow-up [18] In this clinical study, 14 patients received 60 indirect inlay/onlay restorations (30 lithium disilicate ceramic and 30 hybrid ceramic) fabricated by Cerec Omnicam.…”