A prospective clinical study of ceromer inlays: results up to 53 months
- PMID: 15008227
A prospective clinical study of ceromer inlays: results up to 53 months
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a ceromer (Targis) in indirect inlay restorations.
Materials and methods: Ninty-nine Targis inlays (37 premolars, 62 molars) were placed in 51 patients (mean age 27 years). Twenty-nine percent of the restorations were placed in patients with parafunctional habits such as bruxism or clenching. All restorations were in occlusion and were placed using Variolink (43 Variolink Ultra, 56 Variolink II high viscosity) in combination with the Syntac Classic adhesive system under rubber dam isolation. The restorations were evaluated according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline and for a recall period of 6 to 53 months after insertion.
Results: There were two clinically unacceptable failures in total. Fracture was registered in one molar at 38 months, and one molar needed endodontic treatment 7 months after insertion. Based on Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis, the estimated survival rate of the inlays was 97.9% (97.7% for Variolink Ultra, 98.2% for Variolink II high viscosity). It was apparent that deterioration occurred in the surface texture of the inlays, since a slightly pitted surface was observed in 29% of the inlays at recall examinations.
Conclusion: In this in vivo study, Targis inlays luted with both resin luting agents functioned satisfactorily, with a relatively low fracture rate over a mean evaluation period of 28 months.
Similar articles
-
Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Jan-Feb;14(1):81-6. Int J Prosthodont. 2001. PMID: 11842911 Clinical Trial.
-
Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years.Dent Mater. 2006 Jan;22(1):13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.013. Epub 2005 Aug 24. Dent Mater. 2006. PMID: 16122784 Clinical Trial.
-
Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.Oper Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;25(6):459-65. Oper Dent. 2000. PMID: 11203857 Clinical Trial.
-
Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.Am J Dent. 2000 Nov;13(Spec No):60D-76D. Am J Dent. 2000. PMID: 11763920 Review.
-
Clinical considerations for aesthetic laboratory-fabricated inlay/onlay restorations: a review.Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2001 Jan-Feb;13(1):51-8; quiz 60. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2001. PMID: 11301531 Review.
Cited by
-
Effect of Mechanical Surface Treatment on the Repair Bond Strength of the Silorane-based Composite Resin.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014 Spring;8(2):61-6. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2014.011. Epub 2014 Jun 11. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014. PMID: 25093047 Free PMC article.
-
Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Dental Ceromer.J Funct Biomater. 2020 Feb 21;11(1):11. doi: 10.3390/jfb11010011. J Funct Biomater. 2020. PMID: 32098165 Free PMC article.
-
Sleep bruxism: challenges and restorative solutions.Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2016 Apr 22;8:71-7. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S70715. eCollection 2016. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2016. PMID: 27217798 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effect of Surface Treatment with Er;Cr:YSSG, Nd:YAG, and CO2 Lasers on Repair Shear Bond Strength of a Silorane-based Composite Resin.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013;7(2):61-6. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2013.011. Epub 2013 May 30. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013. PMID: 23875082 Free PMC article.
-
Repair bond strength of composite: Effect of surface treatment and type of composite.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 Jun 1;10(6):e520-e527. doi: 10.4317/jced.54030. eCollection 2018 Jun. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018. PMID: 29930769 Free PMC article.