Top

Published in:

Open Access 11-12-2022 | Veneer | Research

Influence of dental prophylaxis procedures on the tooth veneer interface in resin-based composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic veneer restorations: an in vitro study

Authors: Lena Unterschütz, Florian Fuchs, Laura-Antonia Mayer, Andreas Koenig, Nadia Challakh, Ellen Schulz-Kornas, Dirk Ziebolz, Sebastian Hahnel

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 6/2023

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of dental prophylaxis cleaning procedures and artificial aging on veneers in human teeth. The external marginal and internal tooth veneer as well as the restoration surfaces were examined.

Material and methods

Thirty-two extracted premolars were restored with resin-based composite (RBC) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) veneers. Artificial aging by alternating thermocycling and subsequent prophylaxis procedure (glycine-based powder air polishing or ultrasonic scaling) was conducted for five consecutive cycles. The external marginal interface was examined by height profile measurements and the internal interface was investigated using micro X-ray computed tomography. In addition, the surface texture of the veneer surface was analyzed using confocal laser scanning microscopy.

Results

The application of both prophylaxis procedures resulted in a deepening of the marginal interface (10 µm ± 8 µm) for materials. Furthermore, the internal interface of PICN restorations showed marginal gaps after both treatments and artificial aging (16 µm ± 3 µm). In contrast to the RBC specimens, a significant increase in surface roughness was identified for PICN veneers after ultrasonic scaling.

Conclusions

The marginal and internal interface regions in veneers fabricated from PICN and RBC were affected by prophylaxis procedures. Furthermore, it may result in increased veneer surface roughness, especially in PICN and after ultrasonic scaling, which might affect bioadhesion and longevity.

Clinical relevance

After dental prophylaxis procedures, examination of the marginal and the internal interface as well as the veneer surface provides a precise insight into damage mechanisms and offers an assessment of longevity.

Available only for authorised users

Bartlett D, O’Toole S (2019) Tooth wear and aging. Aust Dent J 64:S59–S62. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12681CrossRefPubMed

Van’tSpijker A, Rodriguez JM, Kreulen CM et al (2009) Prevalence of tooth wear in adults. Int J Prosthodont 22:35–42

Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME (2003) Minimally invasive dentistry. The Journal of the American Dental Association 134:87–95. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0021

Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC (2018) CAD/CAM Ceramic Restorative Materials for Natural Teeth. J Dent Res 97:1082–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518779759CrossRefPubMed

Mainjot AKJ (2020) The One step-No prep technique: A straightforward and minimally invasive approach for full-mouth rehabilitation of worn dentition using polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) CAD-CAM prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent 32:141–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12432CrossRefPubMed

Schlichting LH, Resende TH, Reis KR et al (2016) Simplified treatment of severe dental erosion with ultrathin CAD-CAM composite occlusal veneers and anterior bilaminar veneers. J Prosthet Dent 116:474–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.013CrossRefPubMed

Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC et al (2016) From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks. J Dent Res 95:487–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516634286CrossRefPubMed

Schlichting LH, Maia HP, Baratieri LN et al (2011) Novel-design ultra-thin CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic occlusal veneers for the treatment of severe dental erosion. J Prosthet Dent 105:217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60035-8CrossRefPubMed

Moshaverinia A (2020) Review of the modern dental ceramic restorative materials for esthetic dentistry in the minimally invasive age. Dent Clin North Am 64:621–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2020.05.002CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mainjot AKJ, Charavet C (2020) Orthodontic-assisted one step- no prep technique: a straightforward and minimally-invasive approach for localized tooth wear treatment using polymer-infiltrated ceramic network CAD-CAM prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent 32:645–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12630CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ (2014) Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res 93:1232–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514553976CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Oudkerk J, Eldafrawy M, Bekaert S et al (2020) The one-step no-prep approach for full-mouth rehabilitation of worn dentition using PICN CAD-CAM restorations: 2-yr results of a prospective clinical study. J Dent 92:103245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103245CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A et al (2018) Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent 120:318.e1-318.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.011CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO (2016) Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater 32:e275–e283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hensel F, Koenig A, Doerfler H-M et al (2021) CAD/CAM resin-based composites for use in long-term temporary fixed dental prostheses. Polymers (Basel) 13:3469. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13203469CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sugiyama T, Kameyama A, Enokuchi T, et al. (2017) Effect of professional dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Clin Exp Dent 9(6):e772–e778. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53826

17.

Jotikasthira NE, Lie T, Leknes KN (1992) Comparative in vitro studies of sonic, ultrasonic and reciprocating scaling instruments. J Clin Periodontol 19:560–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1992.tb00684.xCrossRefPubMed

18.

Bühler J, Amato M, Weiger R et al (2016) A systematic review on the effects of air polishing devices on oral tissues. Int J Dent Hygiene 14:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12120CrossRef

19.

Lee J-H, Kim S-H, Han J-S et al (2019) Effects of ultrasonic scaling on the optical properties and surface characteristics of highly translucent CAD/CAM ceramic restorative materials: an in vitro study. Ceram Int 45:14594–14601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.04.177CrossRef

20.

Anselme K, Davidson P, Popa AM et al (2010) The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces structured at the nanometre scale. Acta Biomater 6:3824–3846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001CrossRefPubMed

21.

Schubert A, Wassmann T, Holtappels M et al (2019) Predictability of microbial adhesion to dental materials by roughness parameters. Coatings 9:456. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings9070456CrossRef

22.

Andrei M, Pirvu C, Demetrescu I (2014) Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in understanding the influence of ultrasonic dental scaling on the dental structure-dental filling interface. Eur J Oral Sci 122:411–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12156CrossRefPubMed

23.

Janiszewska-Olszowska J, J, Drozdzik A, Tandecka K, et al (2020) Effect of air-polishing on surface roughness of composite dental restorative material – comparison of three different air-polishing powders. BMC Oral Health 20:263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1007-yCrossRef

24.

Yazigi C, Schneider H, Chaar MS et al (2018) Effects of artificial aging and progression of cracks on thin occlusal veneers using SD-OCT. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 88:231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.017CrossRefPubMed

25.

Blunck U, Fischer S, Hajtó J et al (2020) Ceramic laminate veneers: effect of preparation design and ceramic thickness on fracture resistance and marginal quality in vitro. Clin Oral Invest 24:2745–2754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03136-zCrossRef

26.

Gresnigt MMM, Cune MS, Jansen K et al (2019) Randomized clinical trial on indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers: up to 10-year findings. J Dent 86:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.06.001CrossRefPubMed

27.

Dias MCR, Martins JNR, Chen A et al (2018) Prognosis of indirect composite resin cuspal coverage on endodontically treated premolars and molars: an in vivo prospective study. J Prosthodont 27:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12545CrossRefPubMed

28.

Elbadawy AA, Elaziz MHA, Alnazzawi AA et al (2021) Effect of various digital cement space settings on the adaptation of CAD/CAM occlusal veneer “micro-ct evaluation.” Dent Mater J 40:625–630. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2020-226CrossRefPubMed

29.

Papadopoulos K, Pahinis K, Saltidou K et al (2020) Evaluation of the surface characteristics of dental CAD/CAM materials after different surface treatments. Materials 13:981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13040981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Strasser T, Preis V, Behr M et al (2018) Roughness, surface energy, and superficial damages of CAD/CAM materials after surface treatment. Clin Oral Invest 22:2787–2797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2365-6CrossRef

31.

Straface A, Rupp L, Gintaute A et al (2019) HF etching of CAD/CAM materials: influence of HF concentration and etching time on shear bond strength. Head Face Med 15:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-019-0206-8CrossRef

32.

Matzinger M, Hahnel S, Preis V et al (2019) Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Invest 23:725–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2473-3CrossRef

33.

Blumer L, Schmidli F, Weiger R et al (2015) A systematic approach to standardize artificial aging of resin composite cements. Dent Mater 31:855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.04.015CrossRefPubMed

34.

PD ISO/TS 11405:2015, Dentistry. Testing of adhesion to tooth structure, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

35.

Gale MS, Darvell BW (1999) Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 27:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2CrossRefPubMed

36.

Shimizu Y, Tada K, Seki H et al (2014) Effects of air polishing on the resin composite–dentin interface. Odontology 102:279–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-013-0111-8CrossRefPubMed

37.

Gartenmann SJ, Thurnheer T, Attin T et al (2017) Influence of ultrasonic tip distance and orientation on biofilm removal. Clin Oral Invest 21:1029–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1854-8CrossRef

38.

ISO 25178–1:2016, Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - surface texture: areal - Part 1: Indication of surface texture, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

39.

Etxeberria M, Escuin T, Vinas M et al (2015) Useful surface parameters for biomaterial discrimination. Scanning 37:429–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.21232CrossRefPubMed

40.

ISO 25178–2:2012, Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - surface texture: areal - Part 2: Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

41.

Fuchs F, Koenig A, Poppitz D et al (2020) Application of macro photography in dental materials science. J Dent 102:103495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103495CrossRefPubMed

42.

Koenig A (2020) Analysis of air voids in cementitious materials using micro X-ray computed tomography (µXCT). Constr Build Mater 244:118313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118313CrossRef

43.

Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M (2013) Randomized clinical trial of indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers: up to 3-year follow-up. J Adhes Dent 15:181–190. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28883CrossRefPubMed

44.

Morresi AL, D’Amario M, Capogreco M et al (2014) Thermal cycling for restorative materials: does a standardized protocol exist in laboratory testing? A literature review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 29:295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.09.013CrossRefPubMed

45.

Al-Harbi FA, Ayad NM, ArRejaie AS et al (2017) Effect of aging regimens on resin nanoceramic chairside CAD/CAM material. J Prosthodont 26:432–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12408CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ducke VM, Ilie N (2021) Aging behavior of high-translucent CAD/CAM resin-based composite blocks. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 115:104269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104269CrossRefPubMed

47.

Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M et al (2014) Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 33:705–710. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-208CrossRefPubMed

48.

Haak R, Siegner J, Ziebolz D et al (2021) OCT evaluation of the internal adaptation of ceramic veneers depending on preparation design and ceramic thickness. Dent Mater 37:423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.021CrossRefPubMed

49.

Sarr M, Mine A, De Munck J et al (2010) Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin. Clin Oral Investig 14(5):569–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0327-8CrossRefPubMed

50.

De Kok P, de Jager N, Veerman IA (2016) Effect of a retention groove on the shear bond strength of dentin-bonded restorations. J Prosthet Dent 116(3):382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.032CrossRefPubMed

51.

Chen C, Trindade FZ, de Jager N et al (2014) The fracture resistance of a CAD/CAM resin nano ceramic (RNC) and a CAD ceramic at different thicknesses. Dent Mater 30(9):954–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.018CrossRefPubMed

52.

Hamburger JT, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM et al (2014) Effect of thickness of bonded composite resin on compressive strength. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 37:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.05.008CrossRefPubMed

53.

Schmohl L, Roesner A, Fuchs F et al (2022) Acid resistance of CAD/CAM resin composites. Biomedicines 10(6):1383. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Ustun S, Ayaz EA (2021) Effect of different cement systems and aging on the bond strength of chairside CAD-CAM ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 125:334–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.025CrossRefPubMed

55.

De Kok P, Kleverland CJ, Kuijs RH et al (2018) Influence of dentin and enamel on the fracture resistance of restorations at several thicknesses. Am J Dent 31(1):34–38PubMed

56.

Lobauer U (2010) dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? – Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 3(1):76–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3010076CrossRef

57.

Koenig A, Schmohl L, Scheffler J et al (2021) Is Micro X-ray computer tomography a suitable non-destructive method for the characterisation of dental materials? Polymers (Basel) 13:1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13081271CrossRefPubMed

58.

Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I et al (2018) Does artificial aging affect mechanical properties of CAD/CAM composite materials. J Prosthodont Res 62:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.001CrossRefPubMed

59.

Song F, Koo H, Ren D (2015) Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J Dent Res 94:1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515587690CrossRefPubMed

60.

Bollen CML, Papaioanno W, van Eldere J et al (1996) The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.xCrossRefPubMed

61.

Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M (1997) Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 13:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3CrossRefPubMed

62.

Teughels W, van Assche N, Sliepen I et al (2006) Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:68–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.xCrossRefPubMed

63.

Zheng S, Bawazir M, Dhall A et al (2021) Implication of surface properties, bacterial motility, and hydrodynamic conditions on bacterial surface sensing and their initial adhesion. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 9:338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.643722CrossRef

Title: Influence of dental prophylaxis procedures on the tooth veneer interface in resin-based composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic veneer restorations: an in vitro study
Authors: Lena Unterschütz
Florian Fuchs
Laura-Antonia Mayer
Andreas Koenig
Nadia Challakh
Ellen Schulz-Kornas
Dirk Ziebolz
Sebastian Hahnel
Publication date: 11-12-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Veneer
Dental Prophylaxis
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 6/2023
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04816-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Influence of dental prophylaxis procedures on the tooth veneer interface in resin-based composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic veneer restorations: an in vitro study

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2023

Reliability of probing depth assessments at healthy implant sites and natural teeth

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

Association between periodontitis and breast cancer: two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Differential analysis of culturable and unculturable subgingival target microorganisms according to the stages of periodontitis

Efficacy of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) for gingival phenotype modification: a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Three-dimensional (3D) printing in dental practice: Applications, areas of interest, and level of evidence