Dental Materials
Volume 25, Issue 8 , Pages 960-968 , August 2009

Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays

  • Roland Frankenberger

      Affiliations

    • Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Medical Center Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstraße 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +49 9131 8534251; fax: +49 9131 8533603.
    • ,
  • Christian Reinelt

      Affiliations

    • Private Practice, Nuremberg, Germany
    • ,
  • Anselm Petschelt

      Affiliations

    • Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Medical Center Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstraße 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
    • ,
  • Norbert Krämer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University Medical Center Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany

Received 29 July 2008 ,Revised 20 November 2008 ,Accepted 10 February 2009.

References 

  1. Fuzzi M, Rappelli G. Survival rate of ceramic inlays. J Dent. 1998;26:623–626
  2. Hayashi M, Yeung CA. Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth. Aust Dent J. 2004;49:60–67
  3. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508
  4. Kramer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years—a clinical study. J Dent. 1999;27:325–331
  5. Blatz M. The clinical long-term success of ceramic restorations. Part I. Inlays and onlays. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2004;16:622
  6. Ferrari M, Dagostin A, Fabianelli A. Marginal integrity of ceramic inlays luted with a self-curing resin system. Dent Mater. 2003;19:270–276
  7. Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Kramer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. Oper Dent. 2000;25:459–465
  8. Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent. 2000;13:60D–76D
  9. Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Oper Dent. 2000;25:466–472
  10. Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21:53–59
  11. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000;108:239–246
  12. Posselt A, Kerschbaum T. Longevity of 2328 chairside Cerec inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent. 2003;6:231–248
  13. Reiss B. Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. Int J Comput Dent. 2006;9:11–22
  14. Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:241–246
  15. Wrbas KT, Hein N, Schirrmeister JF, Altenburger MJ, Hellwig E. Two-year clinical evaluation of Cerec 3D ceramic inlays inserted by undergraduate dental students. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:575–581
  16. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent. 2000;25:473–481
  17. Manhart J, Chen HY, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays. Am J Dent. 2001;14:95–99
  18. Roulet JF. Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam—results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig. 1997;1:40–46
  19. Bortolotto T, Onisor I, Krejci I. Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11:35–43
  20. Felden A, Schmalz G, Federlin M, Hiller KA. Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig. 1998;2:161–167
  21. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible RB, Nikolaenko SA, Naumann M. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent Mater. 2008;24:185–191
  22. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:45–64
  23. Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent; in press.
  24. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. 6-Year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent. 1998;23:318–326
  25. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000;25:324–330
  26. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Nikolaenko SA. Adhesive luting revisited: influence of adhesive, temporary cement, cavity cleaning, and curing mode on internal dentin bond strength. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(Suppl 2):269–273
  27. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self etch?. J Adhes Dent; in press.
  28. De Munck J, Van LK, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84:118–132
  29. Hikita K, Van MB, De MJ, Ikeda T, Van LK, Maida T, et al. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2007;23:71–80
  30. Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Folwaczny M, Hickel R. Stabilization effects of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations in extended MOD cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6:239–245
  31. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Romanowicz M. Strength estimation of different designs of ceramic inlays and onlays in molars based on the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98:89–100
  32. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99:131–140
  33. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J. 2007;57:300–302
  34. Mjor IA. Practice-based dental research. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:913–920
  35. Mjor IA. Controlled clinical trials and practice-based research in dentistry. J Dent Res. 2008;87:605
  36. Schulz P, Johansson A, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of Mirage ceramic inlays over up to 9 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:510–514
  37. van Dijken JW, Hoglund-Aberg C, Olofsson AL. Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow up. J Dent. 1998;26:219–225
  38. van Dijken JW. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation. Dent Mater. 2003;19:670–674
  39. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28:215–235
  40. Bouillaguet S, Degrange M, Cattani M, Godin C, Meyer JM. Bonding to dentin achieved by general practitioners. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2002;112:1006–1011
  41. Kramer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years. Dent Mater. 2006;22:13–21
  42. Frankenberger R, Tay FR. Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21:397–412
  43. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro?. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(Suppl 1):107–116
  44. Fujitani M, Inokoshi S, Hosoda H. Effect of acid etching on the dental pulp in adhesive composite restorations. Int Dent J. 1992;42:3–11
  45. Hebling J, Giro EM, Costa CA. Human pulp response after an adhesive system application in deep cavities. J Dent. 1999;27:557–564
  46. Frankenberger R, Kern M. Dentin adhesives create a positive bond to dental hard tissue. Int J Comput Dent. 2003;6:187–192
  47. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9:469–475
  48. Kramer N, Kunzelmann KH, Taschner M, Mehl A, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res. 2006;85:1097–1100
  49. Lohbauer U, Kramer N, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Correlation of in vitro fatigue data and in vivo clinical performance of a glassceramic material. Dent Mater. 2008;24:39–44
  50. Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Vanherle G. Factors affecting adhesion to mineralized tissues. Oper Dent. 1992;(Suppl 5):111–124
  51. Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De MJ, Hashimoto M, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2005;24:1–13

PII: S0109-5641(09)00124-9

doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.02.002

Dental Materials
Volume 25, Issue 8 , Pages 960-968 , August 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution