Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: Effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity
Frankenberger R, Kraemer N, Appelt A, Lohbauer U, Naumann M, Roggendorf MJ (2011)
Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2011
Journal
Book Volume: 27
Pages Range: 892-898
Journal Issue: 9
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.05.007
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the influence of different temporary restorations and luting techniques of labside and chairside ceramic inlays on enamel defects and marginal integrity. Methods: 120 extracted human third molars received MOD preparations with one proximal box each limited in either enamel or dentin. 64 Cerec 2 inlays and 56 IPS Empress I inlays were randomly assigned to the following groups (fabrication mode: chairside (CS) = no temporary restoration (TR), labside (LS) = TR with Luxatemp (L) inserted with TempBond NE, or Systemp.inlay (SI) without temporary cement), luting technique: SV = Syntac/Variolink II, RX = RelyX Unicem: A: Cerec inlays were luted with (1) CS/SV. (2) CS/SV/Heliobond separately light-cured. (3) CS/RX. (4) LS/L/SV. (5) LS/L/RX. (6) LS/SI/SV. (7) LS/SI/RX. (8) LS/SI/RX with selective enamel etching. B: Empress. (9) L/SV. (10) L/SV/Heliobond separately light-cured. (11) L/RX. (12) SI/SV. (13) SI/SV, Heliobond separately lightcured. (14) SI/RX. (15) SI/RX after selective enamel etching. Before and after thermomechanical loading (TML: loading time of TR 1000 × 50 N + 25 thermocycles (TC) between +5 °C and +55 °C; clinical simulation: 100,000 × 50 N + 2500 TC) luting gaps, enamel cracks, and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentin were determined under an SEM microscope (200×) using replicas. Results: Loading time of temporary restorations negatively affected enamel integrity and enamel chipping (p < 0.05). Luxatemp resulted in less enamel cracks than Systemp.inlay (p < 0.05). Syntac/Variolink achieved better marginal enamel quality than RelyX Unicem in all groups (p < 0.05). Marginal quality in dentin revealed no differences when no temporary cement was used (p > 0.05). Temporary cement negatively affected dentin margins when RelyX Unicem was used (p < 0.05). Significance: Chairside-fabricated Cerec inlays reduce the risk of enamel cracks and marginal enamel chipping due to omitted temporary restorations. Syntac/Variolink revealed a significantly better performance than RelyX Unicem. © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors with CRIS profile
Involved external institutions
Germany (DE)How to cite
APA:
Frankenberger, R., Kraemer, N., Appelt, A., Lohbauer, U., Naumann, M., & Roggendorf, M.J. (2011). Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: Effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Dental Materials, 27(9), 892-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.05.007
MLA:
Frankenberger, Roland, et al. "Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: Effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity." Dental Materials 27.9 (2011): 892-898.
BibTeX: Download