Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2007

01-03-2007 | Original Article

Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: Marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning

Authors: T. Bortolotto, I. Onisor, I. Krejci

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation of CEREC ceramic inlays, CEREC composite inlays and direct composite restorations in unbeveled proximal slot cavities under artificial aging conditions. Two groups of each restoration type were prepared (n = 6), one group with a self-etch adhesive, the other group with H3PO4 enamel etching before the self-etch adhesive application. Replicas were generated before and after long-term thermo-mechanical loading under dentinal fluid simulation and margins were evaluated at ×200 magnification in the scanning electron miscroscope (SEM). Statistically, significant differences were found before and after loading with respect to the percentages of “continuous margins”, the direct composite filling with H3PO4 enamel etching giving the lowest percentages of “continuous margins” after loading (p < 0.05). The highest percentage of “continuous margin” was attained by composite inlays without H3PO4 enamel etching. However, these results were not significantly different from ceramic inlays after stressing. Polymerization shrinkage is still one critical property of composite restorative materials. The marginal adaptation of indirect adhesive proximal slot restorations without enamel bevels both fabricated out of composite and ceramic is better than that of directly placed composite restorations.
Literature
1.
Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson C, Watts D (2004) Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Dent Mater 20:862–872PubMedCrossRef
2.
Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M (2003) Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 89:268–274PubMedCrossRef
3.
Buonocore M (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34:849–853PubMed
4.
Burgess JO, Walker RS, Porche CJ, Rappold AJ (2002) Light curing—an update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:889–892PubMed
5.
Burke FJ, Watts DC, Wilson NH, Wilson MA (1991) Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Br Dent J 7:269–273
6.
Fett H, Mörmann W, Krejci I, Lutz F (1991) Marginal adaptation of Cerec-MOD inlays in vitro. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on computer restorations. Zurich, Switzerland, pp 393–404
7.
Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P (1996) A traumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140PubMed
8.
Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E (1998) 3 year survival of ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health program in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126PubMedCrossRef
9.
Friedl KH, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Bey B (1997) Clinical and quantitative marginal analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:163–168PubMedCrossRef
10.
Göhring TN, Peters OA, Lutz F (2001) Marginal adaptation of inlay-retained adhesive fixed partial dentures after mechanical and thermal stress: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1:81–92
11.
12.
Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64PubMed
13.
Hilton T, Schwartz R, Ferracane J (1997) Microleakage of four Class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature. Quintessence Int 28:135–144PubMed
14.
Houpt M, Fuks A, Eidelman F (1994) The preventive resin (composite resin/sealant) restoration. Nine-year results. Quintessence Int 25:155–159PubMed
15.
Hugo B, Lussi A, Hotz P (1992) The preparation of enamel margin beveling in proximal cavities. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 102:1181–188 (in German)PubMed
16.
Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Schmitz B, Klaiber B (2001) Marginal adaptation of small Class II resin restorations. An in vitro evaluation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:19–27 (in German)PubMed
17.
Hunt PR (1984) A modified class II cavity preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int 10:1011–1018
18.
Hunt PR (1994) Rational cavity design principles. J Esthet Dent 6:245–256PubMed
19.
Jinks GM (1963) Fluoride-impregnated cements and their effect on the activity of interproximal caries. J Dent Child 30:87–92
20.
Kaaden C, Powers JM, Friedl KH, Schmalz G (2002) Bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dental hard tissues. Clin Oral Investig 6:155–160PubMedCrossRef
21.
Knight GM (1984) The use of adhesive materials in the conservative restoration of selected posterior teeth. Aust Dent J 29:324–331PubMedCrossRef
22.
Krejci I, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro test results of the evaluation of dental restoration systems. Correlation with in-vivo results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1445–1449 (in German)PubMed
23.
Krejci I, Reich T, Lutz F, Albertoni M (1990) In-vitro test procedure for evaluation of dental restorative systems: 1. Computer-controlled chewing simulator. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:953–960 (in German)PubMed
24.
Krejci I, Albertoni M, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro test procedure for evaluation of dental restorative systems: 1. Computer-controlled chewing simulator. 2. Toothbrush-/toothpaste abrasion and chemical degradation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1164–1168 (in German)PubMed
25.
Krejci I, Kuster M, Lutz F (1993) Influence of dentinal fluid and stress on marginal adaptation of resin composites. J Dent Res 72:490–495PubMed
26.
Krejci I, Lutz F, Krejci D (1995) Sonic/ultrasonic diamond coating instruments for cavity preparation, for contouring and finishing. ZWR 104:781–786 (in German)
27.
Lu H, Stansbury JW, Dickens SH, Eichmiller FC, Bowman CN (2004) Probing the origins and control of shrinkage stress in dental resin-composites: I. Shrinkage stress characterization technique. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15:1097–1103PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lussi A (1995) Damage to neighboring teeth during the preparation of proximal cavities. An in-vivo study. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 10:1259–1264 (in German)
29.
Lussi A, Kronenberg O, Megert B (2003) The effect of magnification on the iatrogenic damage to adjacent tooth surfaces during Class II preparation. J Dent 31:291–296PubMedCrossRef
30.
Lutz F, Krejci I, Oldenburg TR (1986) Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int 17:777–784PubMed
31.
Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F (1991) Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 7:107–113PubMedCrossRef
32.
Lutz F, Krejci I (1999) Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 12:1138–1144
33.
Manhart J, Schmidt M, Chen HY, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2001) Marginal quality of tooth-colored restorations in class II cavities after artificial aging. Oper Dent 4:357–366
34.
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508PubMed
35.
Mehl A, Hickel R (1999) Current state of development and perspectives of machined-based production methods for dental restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2:9–35PubMed
36.
Mertz-fairhust EJ, Curtis JW, Ergle JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM (1998) Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc 129:55–66
37.
Mormann W, Bindl A (2000) The Cerec 3-A quantum leap for computer-aided restorations: initial clinical results. Quintessence Int 10:699–712
38.
39.
Munechika T, Suzuki K, Nishiyama M, Ohashi M, Horie K (1984) A comparison of the tensile bond strengths of composite resins to longitudinal and transverse sections of enamel prisms in human teeth. J Dent Res 8:1079–1082
40.
Nordbo H, Leirskar J, Von Der Fehr F (1993) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for composite resin restorations in class II carious lesions: three year results. J Prosthet Dent 69:155–159PubMedCrossRef
41.
Opdam NJM, Roeters JJM, Van Berghem E, Eijsvogels E, Bronkhorst E (2002) Microleakage and damage to adjacent teeth when finishing Class II adhesive preparations using either a sonic device or bur. Am J Dent 15:317–320PubMed
42.
Peutzfeld A, Asmussen E (2004) Determinants of in vitro gap formation of resin composites. J Dent 32:109–115CrossRef
43.
Pyk N, Mejare I (1999) Tunnel restorations in general practice. Influence of some clinical variables on the success rate. Acta Odontol Scand 57:195–200PubMedCrossRef
44.
Reiss B, Walther W (2000) Clinical long-term results and 10 year Kaplan Meier Analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comp Dent 3:9–23
45.
Roulet JF, Salchow B, Wald M (1991) Margin analysis of posterior composites in vivo. Dent Mater 7:44–49PubMedCrossRef
46.
Rusin R (2001) Properties and applications of a new composite block for CAD/CAM. Compendium 22:35–41PubMed
47.
Sarrett DC (2005) Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:9–20PubMedCrossRef
48.
Schmalz G, Federlin M, Reich E (1995) Effect of dimension of luting space and luting composite on marginal adaptation of a class II ceramic inlay. J Prosthet Dent 73:392–399PubMedCrossRef
49.
Shimada Y, Tagami J (2003) Effects of regional enamel and prism orientation on resin bonding. Oper Dent 28:20–27PubMed
50.
Sidhu SK, Watson TF (1995) Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 8:59–67PubMed
51.
Simonsen RJ (1989) Cost effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant at 10 years. Quintessence Int 20:75–84PubMed
52.
Staehle HJ (1999) Minimally invasive restorative treatment. J Adhes Dent 3:267–284
53.
Stavridakis MM, Lutz F, Johnston WM, Krejci I (2003) Linear displacement and force induced by polymerization shrinkage of resin-based restorative materials. Am J Dent 16:431–438PubMed
54.
Strand GV, Nordbo H, Tveit AB, Espelid I, Wikstrand K, Eide GE (1996) A three-year clinical study of tunnel restorations. Eur J Oral Sci 104:384–389PubMed
55.
Tyas M, Anusavice K, Frencken J, Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry-a review. Int Dent J 50:1–12PubMed
56.
Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, de Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2006) Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 34:77–85PubMedCrossRef
57.
Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado M, Delong R, Douglas W (2004) Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 20:554–564PubMedCrossRef
58.
Weinmann W, Thalacker CH, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21:68–74PubMedCrossRef
59.
Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, Mccabe JF (1990) The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 169:361–366PubMed
60.
Wilder A, May K, Bayne S, Taylor D, Leinfelder K (1999) Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 3:135–142
61.
Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (1993) Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int 24:641–658PubMed
62.
Yip HK, Samaranayake LP (1998) Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2:148–154CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: Marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning
Authors
T. Bortolotto
I. Onisor
I. Krejci
Publication date
01-03-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2007
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0076-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2007 Go to the issue

Original Article

Deposition of fluoride on enamel surfaces released from varnishes is limited to vicinity of fluoridation site

Original Article

Demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and platelet-rich plasma vs platelet-rich plasma alone in infrabony defects: a clinical and radiographic evaluation

Editorial

Daniel van Steenberghe hands over the Associate Editor position to Reinhilde Jacobs

Original Article

Comparison of the proliferative activity in gingival epithelium after surgical treatments of intrabony defects with bioactive glass and bioabsorbable membrane

Original Article

Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws

Review

Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials