One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Indirect Porcelain, Hybrid and Composite Blocks Restorations

Burhanettin Avcı; Soley Arslan

doi:10.7126/cumudj.809092

EN

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Indirect Porcelain, Hybrid and Composite Blocks Restorations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives:This clinical study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of indirect class II restorations made using three different CAD/CAM blocks. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 indirect class II restorations were performed in 41 patients using Cerasmart (GC Dental Products Europe, Leuven, Belgium) composite, IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) ceramic and Vita Enamic (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) hybrid blocks. The restorations were evaluated for 13 different criteria using modified FDI criteria at the end of one week, six months, and one year. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square, Fischer and Mc Nemar tests. Results: Vita Enamic indirect restorations showed a statistically significant difference in terms of color matching criteria from Cerasmart and IPS e.max CAD using groups in all follow-up periods (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of other criteria (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Cerasmart and IPS e.max CAD restorations showed better color matching than Vita Enamic restorations. Keywords: CAD/CAM, Ceramic Block, Hybrid Block, Indirect Restoration

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Erciyes Üniveristesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü.

Project Number

TDH-2017-7813

Thanks

Desteklerinden dolayı Erciyes Üniveristesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğüne teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Van Dijken JW, Höglund-Åberg C, Olofsson A. Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow up. J Dent 1998;26:219-225.
2. Burke E, Qualtrough A. Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic? Br Dent J 1994;176:53-60.
3. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Feilzer AJ. Materials and luting cements for indirect restorations. In Adv Oper Dent, challenges to the future, chapter 2001:8. 95-107.
4. Duret F, Blouin J-L, Duret B. CAD-CAM in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;117:715-720.
5. Lambert H, Durand J-C, Jacquot B, Fages M. Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:486-495.
6. Bindl A, Lüthy H, Mörmann WH. Strength and fracture pattern of monolithic CAD/CAM-generated posterior crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22:29-36.
7. Chabouis HF, Faugeron VS, Attal J-P. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29:1209-1218.
8. Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 2015;43:1083-1092.

9. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:349-366.
10. Kim J, Shin W. How to do random allocation (randomization). Clin Orthop Surg 2014;6:103-109.
11. Loe H. The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index Systems. J Periodontol 1967;38:Suppl:610-616.
12. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:319-326
13. Boushell LW, Ritter AV. Ceramic inlays: a case presentation and lessons learned from the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21:77-87.
14. Ozakar-Ilday N, Zorba YO, Yildiz M, Erdem V, Seven N, Demirbuga S. Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e521-8.
15. Ishii N, Maseki T, Nara Y. Bonding state of metal-free CAD/CAM onlay restoration after cyclic loading with and without immediate dentin sealing. Dent Mater J 2017;36:357-367.
16. Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 2016;32:687-694.
17. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:45-64.
18. Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26:382-393.
19. Koizumi H, Saiki O, Nogawa H, Hiraba H, Okazaki T, Matsumura H. Surface roughness and gloss of current CAD/CAM resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J 2015;34:881-887.
20. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014;30:564-569.
21 Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:587-593.
22. Azevedo CGS, De Goes MF, Ambrosano GMB, Chan DC. 1-Year clinical study of indirect resin composite restorations luted with a self-adhesive resin cement: effect of enamel etching. Braz Dent J 2012;23:97-103.
23. Kim J-Y, Cho G-Y, Roh B-D, Shin Y. Effect of curing mode on shear bond strength of self-adhesive cement to composite blocks. Materials 2016;9:210.
24. Baader K, Hiller K-A, Buchalla W, Schmalz G, Federlin M. Self-adhesive Luting of Partial Ceramic Crowns: Selective Enamel Etching Leads to Higher Survival after 6.5 Years In Vivo. J Adhes Dent 2016;18:69-79.
25. Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Güth J-F. Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;55:1-11.
26. van Dijken JW, Hasselrot L. A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin–enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 2010;26:929-939.
27. Tagtekin D, Özyöney G, Yanikoglu F. Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays. Oper Dent 2009;34:369-378.
28. Huang Z, Zhang L, Zhu J, Zhang X. Clinical marginal and internal fit of metal ceramic crowns fabricated with a selective laser melting technology. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:623-627.
29. Lefever D, Gregor L, Bortolotto T, Krejci. Supragingival relocation of subgingivally located margins for adhesive inlays/onlays with different materials. J Adhes Dent 2012;14:561-7.
30. 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.
31. Sjögren G, Bergman M, Molin M, Bessing C. A clinical examination of ceramic (Cerec) inlays. Acta Odontol Scand 1992;50:171-178.
32. Fasbinder D, Lampe K, Dennison J, Peters M, Nematollahi K. Clinical performance of CAD/CAM generated ceramic onlays. J Dent Res 1999;78:444.
33. Mjör IA, Toffentti F. Secondary caries: A literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000;31:165-179.
34. Lu T, Peng L, Xiong F, Lin XY, Zhang P, Lin ZT, et al. A 3-year clinical evaluation of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with two different materials using the CEREC AC chair-side system. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:363-368.
35. Miller A, Long J, Miller B, Cole J. Comparison of the fracture strengths of ceramometal crowns versus several all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:38-41.
36. St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift Jr EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:551-557.
37. Ricketts D, Bartlett DW. Advanced Operative Dentistry E-Book: A Practical Approach. Elsevier Health Sciences 2011.
38. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Mehl A, Hickel R. Indirect zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic CAD/CAM restorations: Preliminary clinical results after 12 months. Quintessence Int 2017;48:19-25.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Burhanettin Avcı ^*
0000-0002-0529-0508
Türkiye

Soley Arslan
0000-0003-4487-2049
Türkiye

Publication Date

February 24, 2021

Submission Date

October 14, 2020

Acceptance Date

January 5, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 24 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.809092

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA39CX87XP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Avcı B, Arslan S (February 1, 2021) One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Indirect Porcelain, Hybrid and Composite Blocks Restorations. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 24 1 66–75.

Cited By

Optimum criteria of using Er:YAG laser in roughening PICN surface: a pilot in-vitro study

Minerva Dental and Oral Science

https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.22.04648-4

Five-year clinical evaluation of Class II lesions restored with three indirect CAD-CAM materials (glass-ceramic, polymer-infiltrated ceramic, and composite resin with nanoscale filler): A randomized clinical trial

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.012

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Indirect Porcelain, Hybrid and Composite Blocks Restorations

Abstract

Keywords

Öz

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

Optimum criteria of using Er:YAG laser in roughening PICN surface: a pilot in-vitro study

Five-year clinical evaluation of Class II lesions restored with three indirect CAD-CAM materials (glass-ceramic, polymer-infiltrated ceramic, and composite resin with nanoscale filler): A randomized clinical trial