Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years

Fradeani, Mauro; Aquilano, Augusto; Bassein, Leona

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70041-6

Cited by 60 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…7,9,21,24,25 In these previous studies, the main cause of failure was associated with bulk fracture of the ceramic restoration and secondary caries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Santos

Mondelli

Navarro

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…7,9,21,24,25 In these previous studies, the main cause of failure was associated with bulk fracture of the ceramic restoration and secondary caries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Santos

Mondelli

Navarro

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This fact can be attributed to the wear of luting resin cement, which is considered as one critical aspect of adhesively luted ceramic restorations 11,12 . This fact can be confirmed by some prospective studies, in which the marginal adaptation is the criterion with the lowest Alfa ratings 7,[10][11][12]14,17,18 . The intraoral fit was evaluated under rubber dam and considered excellent, with only two inlays being returned to the laboratory to be repeated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Marginal discoloration and marginal integrity showed Bravo ratings for IPS (6.82%); D (4.76%) and IPS (4.55%); D (7.14%), respectively. Fradeani, et al 7 (1997) reported that marginal discoloration and marginal integrity were interrelated and both would deteriorate with time. This fact can be attributed to the wear of luting resin cement, which is considered as one critical aspect of adhesively luted ceramic restorations 11,12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of two types of ceramic inlays and onlays after 6 months

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

he aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two types of ceramics: a slurry-powder ceramic (Duceram Plus, Degussa) -D and a hot-pressed leucite-based glass-ceramic (IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent) -IPS. Eighty-six restorations, 44 IPS and 42 D, were made by one operator. A total of 33 onlays and 53 inlays on twenty-seven premolars and 59 molars were cemented in 35 patients of both sexes, mean age 35 years. All restorations were cemented with the dual-resin cement (Variolink, Ivoclar-Vivadent) under rubber dam and were evaluated at the baseline and after six months, using the modified U.S.P.H.S. criteria for postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, fracture, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity and surface texture. Additionally radiographs and intraoral photographs were carried out. At baseline 86 restorations were analyzed and all of them received Alfa rating, except for the following that received Bravo rating for postoperative sensitivity -IPS (2.27%); D (7.14%); for color match -IPS (2.27%); D (2.38%) and for surface texture -IPS (2.27%); D (11.90%). After 6 months 100% of the restorations were analyzed and the following received Bravo rating: color match -IPS (4.55%) and D (9.52%); surface texture -IPS (2.27%) and D (11.9%); marginal discoloration -IPS (6.82%) and D (4.76%) and marginal integrity -IPS (4.55%) and D (7.14%). The results were submitted to the Fisher and McNemar Statistical Tests. No significant differences were noticed between the two ceramics. Both ceramics demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after six months. Uniterms: Ceramic; Inlay; Onlay; Esthetic restoration; Clinical study. ste trabalho se propôs a avaliar a performance clínica de dois tipos de cerâmica: IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent -IPS e Duceram Plus, Degussa -D. Foram realizadas 86 restaurações por apenas um operador, sendo 44 IPS e 42 D. Vinte e sete pré-molares e 59 molares, num total de 33 onlays e 53 inlays, foram cimentadas em 35 pacientes de ambos os sexos, com idade média de 35 anos. A cimentação das restaurações foi realizada com cimento resinoso dual (Variolink, Ivoclar-Vivadent) sob isolamento absoluto e avaliadas no baseline e após 06 meses, mediante o critério U.S.P.H.S. modificado, quanto à sensibilidade pulpar, reincidência de cárie, fratura, reprodução de cor, descoloração marginal, integridade marginal e textura superficial. Adicionalmente foram realizadas radiografias e fotografias. No baseline foi obtida a classificação Bravo nos itens sensibilidade pulpar -IPS (2,27%); D (7,14%); reprodução de cor -IPS (2,27%); D (2,38%) e textura superficial -IPS (2,27%); D (11,90%). Após 06 meses foram analisadas as 86 restaurações, nas quais foi constatada a classificação Bravo para os itens reprodução de cor -IPS (6,82%); D (2,38%); textura superficial -IPS (2,27%); D (9,52%); descoloração marginal -IPS (6,82%); D (4,76%) e integridade de superfície-IPS (4,55%); D (7,14%). Os resultados obtidos foram submetidos ao Teste Estatístico de Fisher e McNemar. Não houve dife...

show abstract

“…The average wear time of the composite inlays was 36 months, with a maximum observation period of four years and nine months. Some clinical studies using USPHS criteria had shorter observation periods, 3,20,25 while others showed comparable intervals 1,21 or longer observation periods. 2,[14][15]22 Many of these studies have proven that ceramic material is an alternative to other materials, such as resin composite, gold and amalgam for Class I and II restorations, even for extensive defects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] However, long-term studies are needed to compare the clinical behavior of the different materials for posterior restorations. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The clinical performance of several esthetic tooth-colored materials has been analyzed in various studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays Compared to Composite Restorations

Lange¹,

Pfeiffer²

2009

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis study compared the clinical performance of indirectly manufactured ceramic Evopress inlays with those of directly placed, fine particle hybrid Filtek Z250 composite restorations in posterior teeth.From January 2000 to October 2003, 109 patients received 264 Evopress (Wegold) ceramic inlays and 68 patients received 145 Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) composite restorations in a dental office. Two-hundred and fifty ceramic inlays (95%) and 135 composite restorations (93%) were re-examined up to 57 months after placement. Modified USPHS criteria were used for the study. The worst finding of all the assessments was the overall assessment of individual restorations. On the basis of these criteria, 220 (88%) Evopress ceramic inlays were assessed as Alpha at the time of clinical re-examination, 26 (10%) were judged Beta and four ceramic inlays (2%) were rated Delta in the re-examination interval and thus categorized as failures. At the time of re-examination, 91 of the 135 composite restorations (67%) were judged Alpha, 36 restorations (26%) were rated Beta and three restorations (2%) were judged Charlie. Five restorations (4%) were categorized as failures (Delta). In two cases, there were marginal gap formations; there were also two cases of secondary caries after 28 and 35 months, as well as a fracture after 13 months. According to Kaplan and Meier, the survival rate after 57 months was 94% for ceramic inlays and 93% for composite restorations. The log rank test showed no significant differences in the survival curves.The current study showed that indirectly manufactured Evopress ceramic inlays performed better than direct Filtek Z250 composite restorations in marginal adaptation, color match and Ralf-Thomas Lange, Dr med, Dr med dent, dentist, private office, Mönchengladbach, Germany *Peter Pfeiffer, Prof Dr med dent, professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Oral Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany Clinical RelevanceEvopress ceramic inlays and Filtek Z250 composite restorations showed no significant difference regarding survival probability at 57 months when used as Class I and II restoratives in premolars and molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance, with a preference for the ceramic inlays. 264Operative Dentistry anatomic form. However, with regard to survival probability, there was no significant difference.

show abstract

Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years

Cited by 60 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

Clinical evaluation of two types of ceramic inlays and onlays after 6 months

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays Compared to Composite Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About