Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 37, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 813-819
Journal of Dentistry

Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ormocer Definite (Degudent, Hanau, Germany) as resin luting cement.

Methods

In a controlled prospective clinical study, 57 Cergogold (Degudent) all-ceramic inlays were placed in 24 patients by four dentists. The restorations were luted with two different systems (MD = Definite Multibond + Definite; SV = Syntac + Variolink Ultra, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) without lining. At baseline, after 12, 24, and 48 months, restorations were examined according to modified USPHS scores and criteria.

Results

One patient including three restorations missed the 4 years recall (dropout). After 48 months of clinical service, four restorations in four patients (three luted with Definite, one with Variolink) failed due to inlay fracture (n = 3) and tooth fracture (n = 1), all other fillings were clinically acceptable (survival rate 93.3% for Definite vs. 95.2% for Variolink; Kaplan–Meier algorithm). Except for the rate of hypersensitivity at baseline (MD: 27%; SV 0%; p < 0.05), no differences were evident between the luting cements at any recalls (Mann–Whitney U-test; p > 0.05). Between the four recalls, a statistically significant deterioration was detected for both groups regarding the criteria marginal adaptation, filling integrity (cracks/chippings/fractures), and tooth integrity (Friedman test; p < 0.001). After 4 years, mainly distinct deterioration with marginal fractures or chippings in proximal and marginal areas of the inlays were observed. No differences were found for surface roughness, color matching, and proximal contact (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

For luting of ceramic inlays, only slight differences between the two luting systems were detectable.

Introduction

All-ceramic inlays are a well-accepted treatment option for decayed teeth.1, 2, 3 The leucite-reinforced glass ceramic IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) is one of the most successful ceramic types for inlays and onlays.4 In general, prospective clinical studies report promising long-term performances of different inlay systems,1, 2, 3, 4, 5 especially for CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 However, a recent study demonstrated that technique sensitivity is still a major problem and operator skills are fundamentally affecting clinical outcome.10 Clinical aspects of adhesive luting ceramic exhibit two predominant problems: (1) the brittleness of ceramics leads to bulk fractures as main failure reason,1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 but meticulous luting and polishing guarantee for acceptable fracture rates14, 15, 16, 17 and (2) postoperative hypersensitivities are still reported to be between 3 and 5% in recent clinical studies observing tooth-colored inlays.3, 10 Nevertheless, annual failure rates of 1–1.5% are acceptably low.12, 3, 7, 8

From both preclinical and clinical investigations it is known that adhesive luting is still technique sensitive.10, 15, 18 Therefore, simplified luting cements such as self-adhesive cements have been suggested for adhesive luting, however, it is proven that recent self-adhesive cements cannot compete with conventional etch-and-rinse-systems.15, 19, 20 On the other hand, also restorative composites have been proposed to be suitable for adhesive luting when the ultrasonic insertion technique is used for placement of the inlays.17 This aspect was one focus of the present clinical trial, to investigate the restorative ormocer material Definite acting as luting resin composite.

For both adhesive luting and direct restorative therapy, it is still not fully understood whether selective enamel etching combined with the self-etch approach or the etch-and-rinse technique for both enamel and dentin are more appropriate for long-term success of bonded restorations.21, 22, 23, 24 Therefore it was a side aspect of the present study to elucidate that particular question.

The aim of the present prospective clinical two-center study was to investigate the clinical behaviour of adhesively luted pressed glass ceramic inlays and to investigate marginal adaptation of selected samples under a SEM. Two different adhesive/luting composite combinations were used by four different dentists in a private practice and a dental school. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between materials used for luting.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

All patients were required to give written informed consent. The study was conducted according to EN 540 (Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects, European Committee for Standardization), and inspected and approved by an ethics committee (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg). The patients agreed to a recall programme of 4 years consisting of five appointments. Patients selected for this study met the following criteria: (1) absence of pain concerning the tooth to be restored;

Results

One patient with three restorations/two Definite, one Variolink) missed the final recall. After 48 months of clinical service, four restorations in four patients (three luted with Definite, one with Variolink) failed due to inlay fracture (n = 3) and tooth fracture (n = 1). 50 inlays were in good condition (survival rate 94.1%, median survival time 4.73 years (95% confidence interval ± 0.103; survival analysis by Kaplan–Meier algorithm) (Fig. 1). Survival rate after 4 years was 93.3% for Definite vs.

Discussion

The present two-center clinical study aimed to investigate clinical performance of pressed glass ceramic inlays with respect to luting materials’ influence. Therefore, the study was carried out with the same ceramic (Cergogold) and different materials being used for bonding and adhesive luting (Definite + Definite Multibond/Syntac + Variolink Ultra). Due to the high viscosity of the luting resin composites, ultrasonic activation of the thixotropic materials was necessary in accordance to the

Acknowledgement

The present study was supported by Degudent, Hanau, Germany.

References (29)

  • M. Blatz

    The clinical long-term success of ceramic restorations. Part I. Inlays and onlays

    Practical Procedures and Aesthetic Dentistry

    (2004)
  • N. Kramer et al.

    Adhesive luting of indirect restorations

    American Journal of Dentistry

    (2000)
  • U. Pallesen et al.

    An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system

    European Journal of Oral Sciences

    (2000)
  • A. Posselt et al.

    Longevity of 2328 chairside Cerec inlays and onlays

    International Journal of Computerized Dentistry

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text