Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Original Article

Polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM inlays and partial coverage restorations: 3-year results of a prospective clinical study over 5 years

Authors: F. A. Spitznagel, K. J. Scholz, J. R. Strub, K. Vach, P. C. Gierthmuehlen

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this prospective clinical 5-year study was to evaluate the long-term behavior of monolithic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated minimally invasive polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) inlays and partial coverage restorations (PCR).

Material and methods

Posterior teeth of 47 patients were restored with 103 restorations (45 inlays, 58 PCRs). After defect-oriented preparations, monolithic PICN restorations of VITA Enamic were fabricated with a CAD/CAM system (inEoS blue/CEREC inLab MCXL) and adhesively bonded (Variolink II). Clinical reevaluations were so far performed at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after insertion according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Absolute failures were demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier survival rate and relative failures by Kaplan-Meier success rate. A logistic regression model was adjusted for modified USPHS criteria to investigate time and restoration effects (p < 0.05).

Results

After an observation time of 3 years, survival rates were 97.4% for inlays and 95.6% for PCRs. Three restorations had to be replaced due to clinically unacceptable fractures. Secondary caries and debonding were not observed. The 3-year Kaplan-Meier success rate was 84.8% for inlays and 82.4% for PCRs. The decrease in marginal adaption (p = 0.0005), increase in marginal discoloration (p < 0.0001), and surface roughness (p = 0.0005) over time were significant. Color match and anatomic form were excellent. No significant differences were found between both types of restorations for survival (p = 0.716) and success rate (p = 0.431).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive PICN restorations showed a favorable clinical performance over an observation period of 36 months. However, clinical long-term data have to be awaited.

Clinical relevance

PICN restorations are a suitable treatment option for posterior inlays and PCRs.

Mörmann WH (2006) The evolution of the CEREC system. Journal of the American Dental Association 137(1939):7S–13SCrossRefPubMed

Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N (2013) Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 29(4):419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.01.002 CrossRefPubMed

Awada A, Nathanson D (2015) Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 114(4):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.016 CrossRefPubMed

Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ (2016) From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks: state of the art of indirect composites. J Dent Res 95(5):487–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516634286 CrossRefPubMed

Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M, Finger WJ, Arksornnukit M (2014) Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 33(5):705–710. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-208 CrossRefPubMed

Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Oki M, Arksornnukit M, Kanehira M, Finger WJ (2015) In vitro evaluation of the wear resistance of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 34(4):495–502. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-293 CrossRefPubMed

Chavali R, Nejat AH, Lawson NC (2016) Machinability of CAD-CAM materials. J Prosthet Dent 118(2):194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.022 CrossRefPubMed

Swain MV, Coldea A, Bilkhair A, Guess PC (2016) Interpenetrating network ceramic-resin composite dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 32(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.009 CrossRefPubMed

He LH, Swain M (2011) A novel polymer infiltrated ceramic dental material. Dent Mater 27(6):527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.02.002 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Coldea A, Fischer J, Swain MV, Thiel N (2015) Damage tolerance of indirect restorative materials (including PICN) after simulated bur adjustments. Dent Mater 31(6):684–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.007 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Curran P, Cattani-Lorente M, Anselm Wiskott HW, Durual S, Scherrer SS (2017) Grinding damage assessment for CAD-CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater 33(3):294–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.004 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP (2013) Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 29(12):1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.009 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, Huysmans MC, Opdam NJ (2016) A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 32(5):687–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.006 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wittneben JG, Wright RF, Weber HP, Gallucci GO (2009) A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single-tooth restorations. Int J Prosthodont 22(5):466–471PubMed

15.

Guess PC, Selz CF, Voulgarakis A, Stampf S, Stappert CF (2014) Prospective clinical study of press-ceramic overlap and full veneer restorations: 7-year results. Int J Prosthodont 27(4):355–358. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3679 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Ozcan M (2016) Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 95(9):985–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516652848 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S (2013) Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J 7(1):118–122. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210620130904003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Selz CF, Vuck A, Guess PC (2016) Full-mouth rehabilitation with monolithic CAD/CAM-fabricated hybrid and all-ceramic materials: a case report and 3-year follow up. Quintessence Int 47(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34808 PubMed

19.

Zimmermann M, Koller C, Reymus M, Mehl A, Hickel R (2017) Clinical evaluation of indirect particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM partial crowns after 24 months. J Prosthodont. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12582

20.

(1998) American Society of Anesthiologists: new classification of physical status. Anesthesiologists 234:111

21.

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(4):309–325PubMed

22.

Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc 53(282):457–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 CrossRef

24.

Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K (2005) The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 136(12):1714–1723. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0116 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bernhart J, Schulze D, Wrbas KT (2009) Evaluation of the clinical success of Cerec 3D inlays. Int J Comput Dent 12(3):265–277PubMed

26.

Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2014) Effect of selective enamel etching on clinical performance of CAD/CAM partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement. Clin Oral Investig 18(8):1975–1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1173-2 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Guess PC, Strub JR, Steinhart N, Wolkewitz M, Stappert CF (2009) All-ceramic partial coverage restorations—midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study. J Dent 37(8):627–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.006 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Nejatidanesh F, Amjadi M, Akouchekian M, Savabi O (2015) Clinical performance of CEREC AC Bluecam conservative ceramic restorations after five years—a retrospective study. J Dent 43(9):1076–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.006 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Otto T, Schneider D (2008) Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont 21(1):53–59PubMed

30.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation—clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 12(4):259–272. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a19262 PubMed

31.

Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible RB, Nikolaenko SA, Naumann M (2008) Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent Mater 24(2):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.003 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2008) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 10(5):393–398PubMed

33.

Rocca GT, Krejci I (2013) Crown and post-free adhesive restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth: from direct composite to endocrowns. Eur J Esthet Dent 8(2):156–179PubMed

34.

Jiang W, Bo H, Yongchun G, LongXing N (2010) Stress distribution in molars restored with inlays or onlays with or without endodontic treatment: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 103(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60206-7 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Chirumamilla G, Goldstein CE, Lawson NC (2016) A 2-year retrospective clinical study of Enamic crowns performed in a private practice setting. J Esthet Restor Dent 28(4):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12206 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A (2013) Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 20:113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF (2016) Surface evaluation of polishing techniques for new resilient CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 28(1):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12174 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Flury S, Diebold E, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2016) Effect of artificial toothbrushing and water storage on the surface roughness and micromechanical properties of tooth-colored CAD-CAM materials. J Prosthet Dent 117(6):767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.034 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Guth JF (2015) Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 55:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.10.004 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kollmuss M, Jakob FM, Kirchner HG, Ilie N, Hickel R, Huth KC (2013) Comparison of biogenerically reconstructed and waxed-up complete occlusal surfaces with respect to the original tooth morphology. Clin Oral Investig 17(3):851–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0749-6 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M (2003) Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 89(3):268–274. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.50 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB (2014) Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 26(6):382–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12100 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Peumans M, Voet M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 17(3):739–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0762-9 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Özcan M, Volpato C (2016) Surface conditioning and bonding protocol for polymer-infiltrated ceramic: how and why? J Adhes Dent 18(2):174–175. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a35979 PubMed

45.

Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Vermeulen KM, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS (2016) Clinical bonding of resin nano ceramic restorations to zirconia abutments: a case series within a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18(5):984–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12382 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Spitznagel FA, Vuck A, Gierthmuhlen PC, Blatz MB, Horvath SD (2016) Adhesive bonding to hybrid materials: an overview of materials and recommendations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 37(9):630–637PubMed

47.

Naeselius K, Arnelund CF, Molin MK (2008) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: a 4-year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 21(1):40–44PubMed

Title: Polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM inlays and partial coverage restorations: 3-year results of a prospective clinical study over 5 years
Authors: F. A. Spitznagel
K. J. Scholz
J. R. Strub
K. Vach
P. C. Gierthmuehlen
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2293-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM inlays and partial coverage restorations: 3-year results of a prospective clinical study over 5 years

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Oral health-related quality of life depending on dental and periodontal health in different patients before and after liver transplantation

Placement of an antibiotic oral pack on the hard palate after primary cleft palatoplasty: a randomized controlled trial into the effect on fistula rates

Factors affecting the outcomes of direct pulp capping using Biodentine

Porous zirconia ceramic as an alternative to dentin for in vitro dentin barriers cytotoxicity test

Bisphosphonates hinder osteoblastic/osteoclastic differentiation in the maxillary sinus mucosa-derived stem cells

What is the benefit of using amniotic membrane in oral surgery? A comprehensive review of clinical studies