Top

Published in:

01-01-2013 | Original Article

Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro

Authors: Roland Frankenberger, Julia Hehn, Jan Hajtó, Norbert Krämer, Michael Naumann, Andreas Koch, Matthias J. Roggendorf

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2013

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the marginal quality and resin–resin transition of milled CAD/CAM glass–ceramic inlays in deep proximal cavities with and without 3-mm proximal box elevation (PBE) using resin composites before and after thermomechanical loading.

Materials and methods

MOD cavities with one proximal box beneath the cementoenamel junction were prepared in 48 extracted human third molars. Proximal boxes ending in dentin were elevated for 3 mm with different resin composites (RelyX Unicem, G-Cem, and Maxcem Elite as self-adhesive resin cements and Clearfil Majesty Posterior as restorative resin composite in one or three layers bonded with AdheSE) or left untreated. IPS Empress CAD inlays were luted with Syntac and Variolink II (n = 8). Marginal quality as well as the PBE–ceramic interface were analyzed under an SEM using epoxy resin replicas before and after thermomechanical loading (100,000 × 50 N and 2,500 thermocycles between +5°C and +55°C).

Results

Bonding glass–ceramic directly to dentin showed the highest amounts of gap-free margins in dentin (92%, p < 0.05). Bonded resin composite applied in three layers achieved 84% gap-free margins in dentin; PBE with self-adhesive resin cements exhibited significantly more gaps in dentin (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

With a meticulous layering technique and bonded resin composite, PBE may be an alternative to ceramic bonding to dentin. Self-adhesive resin cements seem not suitable for this indication.

Clinical relevance

For deep proximal boxes ending in dentin, a PBE may be an alternative to conventional techniques.

Schulz P, Johansson A, Arvidson K (2003) A retrospective study of Mirage ceramic inlays over up to 9 years. Int J Prosthodont 16:510–514PubMed

Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2000) Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 25:473–481PubMed

Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2000) A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 13:194–200PubMed

Bergman MA (1999) The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review. Aust Dent J 44:157–168PubMedCrossRef

Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (1998) 6-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 23:318–326PubMed

Krämer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2006) Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years. Dent Mater 22:13–21PubMedCrossRef

Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2005) Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 21:262–271PubMedCrossRef

Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW (2004) 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 17:241–246PubMed

Posselt A, Kerschbaum T (2003) Longevity of 2328 chairside Cerec inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent 6:231–248PubMed

10.

Hayashi M, Wilson NH, Yeung CA, Worthington HV (2003) Systematic review of ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 7:8–19PubMed

11.

Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P (2001) A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 32:199–205PubMed

12.

Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R (2000) Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 13:60D–76DPubMed

13.

Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2000) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. Oper Dent 25:459–465PubMed

14.

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

15.

Hayashi M, Tsubakimoto Y, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2004) Quantitative measurement of marginal disintegration of ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 29:3–8PubMed

16.

Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2000) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Oper Dent 25:466–472PubMed

17.

Hayashi M, Tsubakimoto Y, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2004) Analysis of longitudinal marginal deterioration of ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 29:386–391PubMed

18.

Ahlers MO, Mörig G, Blunck U, Hajtó J, Pröbster L, Frankenberger R (2009) Guidelines for the preparation of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays and partial crowns. Int J Comput Dent 12:309–325PubMed

19.

Krifka S, Stangl M, Wiesbauer S, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2009) Influence of different cusp coverage methods for the extension of ceramic inlays on marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 13:333–341PubMedCrossRef

20.

Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Quagliatto PS, Soares CJ (2008) The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 12:53–59PubMedCrossRef

21.

Cantoro A, Goracci C, Coniglio I, Magni E, Polimeni A, Ferrari M (2012) Influence of ultrasound application on inlays luting with self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Investig (in press)

22.

Behr M, Hansmann M, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2009) Marginal adaptation of three self-adhesive resin cements vs. a well-tried adhesive luting agent. Clin Oral Investig 13:459–464PubMedCrossRef

23.

Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G (2004) Influence of cement type on the marginal adaptation of all-ceramic MOD inlays. Dent Mater 20:463–469PubMedCrossRef

24.

Dietschi D, Olsburgh S, Krejci I (2003) In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation after occusal stressing of indirect class II composite restorations with different resinuous bases. Eur J Oral Sci 111:73–80PubMedCrossRef

25.

Frankenberger R, Tay FR (2005) Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:397–412PubMedCrossRef

26.

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 26:357–366PubMed

27.

Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson CL, Watts DC (2004) Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Dent Mater 20:862–872PubMedCrossRef

28.

Dietschi D, Moor L (1999) Evaluation of the marginal and internal adaptation of different ceramic and composite inlay systems after an in vitro fatigue test. J Adhes Dent 1:41–56PubMed

29.

Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dent Mater 25:960–968PubMedCrossRef

30.

Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow (1991) Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 7:107–113PubMedCrossRef

31.

Papadogiannis D, Tolidis K, Lakes R, Papadogiannis Y (2011) Viscoelastic properties of low-shrinking composite resins compared to packable composite resins. Dent Mater J 30:350–357PubMedCrossRef

32.

Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Tay FR, Taschner M, Nikolaenko SA (2007) The effect of different air-polishing powders on dentin bonding. J Adhes Dent 9:381–389PubMed

33.

Taschner M, Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Rosenbusch S, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) IPS Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year. Am J Dent 22:55–59PubMed

34.

Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, Beuer F, Frankenberger R (2010) In vitro performance of self-adhesive resin cements for post-and-core build-ups: influence of chewing simulation or one-year storage in 0.5% chloramine solution. Acta Biomater 6:4389–4395PubMedCrossRef

35.

Mehl A, Kunzelmann K-H, Folwaczny M, Hickel R (2004) Stabilization effects of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations in extended MOD cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:239–245PubMed

Title: Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro
Authors: Roland Frankenberger
Julia Hehn
Jan Hajtó
Norbert Krämer
Michael Naumann
Andreas Koch
Matthias J. Roggendorf
Publication date: 01-01-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0677-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Accuracy of transfer of bite recording to simulated prosthetic reconstructions

Influence of MMP-8 promoter polymorphism in early osseointegrated implant failure

Effect of seating forces on cement–ceramic adhesion in microtensile bond tests

Osteopathology induced by bisphosphonates and dental implants: clinical observations

The original family revisited after 37 years: odontoma–dysphagia syndrome is most likely caused by a microduplication of chromosome 11q13.3, including the FGF3 and FGF4 genes

Dental and oral anomalies in incontinentia pigmenti: a systematic review