Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of a self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE), used for cementation of ceramic inlays. In addition, the influence of selectively acid-etching enamel prior to luting on the clinical performance of the restorations was assessed.

Methods

Sixty-two IPS Empress 2 inlays/onlays were placed in 31 patients by two experienced clinicians. The restorations were luted with RelyX Unicem with (=experimental group: E) or without (=control group: NE) prior enamel etching with phosphoric acid. At baseline, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 4 years after placement, the restorations were assessed by two calibrated investigators using modified USPHS criteria. Ten selected samples of each group were investigated under SEM regarding morphological changes at the cement–inlay interface.

Results

The recall rate at 4 years was 97 %. Two restorations (1 E, 1 NE) were lost, and one (E) had to be replaced due to inlay and tooth fracture resulting in a survival rate of 95 %. No significant differences between the experimental and control group were noticed regarding all criteria (McNemar, p < 0.05). An obvious deterioration in marginal integrity was observed after 4 years as only 5 % (E = 7 %; NE = 3 %) of the restorations exhibited an excellent marginal adaptation. In 90 % of the restorations small, still clinically acceptable marginal deficiencies were observed. SEM of the luting gap showed an increased wear of the RelyX Unicem cement over the 4-year period.

Conclusions

The self-adhesive luting cement RelyX Unicem can be recommended for bonding of ceramic inlays/onlays. Additional selective enamel etching does not improve the clinical performance of the restorations within the 4-year period.

Clinical relevance

The self-adhesive resin composite RelyX Unicem showed acceptable clinical performance after 4 years of clinical service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M (2008) Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 10:251–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T (2007) Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J 26:906–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saskalauskaite E, Tam LE, McComb D (2008) Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and pH profile of self-etch resin luting cements. J Prosthodont 17:262–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 Invest 13:459–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cantoro A, Goracci C, Carvalho CA, Coniglio I, Ferrari M (2009) Bonding potential of self-adhesive luting agents used at different temperatures to lute composite inlays. J Dent 37:454–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Flury S, Lussi A, Peutzfeldt A, Zimmerli B (2010) Push-out bond strength of CAD/CAM-ceramic luted to dentin with self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 26:855–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ilie N, Simon A (2012) Effect of curing mode on the micro-tensile properties of dual-cured self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Invest 16:505–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC (2003) Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent 28:535–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LV, User A, Vallittu PK (2004) A study of the physical and chemical properties of four resin composite luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 17:357–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2004) Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 20:963–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, Maida T, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2007) Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 23:71–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. D’Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, D’Amario M, Zazzeroni S, Ciampoli C, Caputi S (2009) The influence of luting systems on the microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resin-based composite and ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 34:328–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Makishi P, Shimada Y, Sadr A, Wei S, Ichinose S, Tagami J (2010) Nanoleakage expression and microshear bond strength in the resin cement/dentin interface. J Adhes Dent 12:393–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sarr M, Mine A, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Kane AW, Vreven J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K (2010) Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin. Clin Oral Invest 14:569–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schenke F, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2008) Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with different luting techniques and materials. Oper Dent 33:516–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Manso AGM, Gonzalez-Lopez S, Carmona-BolanosV MPFBTD, Felix SA, Carvalho PA (2011) Reginal bond strength to lateral walls in Class I and II ceramic inlays luted with four resin cements and glass-ionomer luting agent. J Adhes Dent 13:455–65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Monticelli F, Osorio R, Mazzitelli C, Ferrari M, Toledano M (2008) Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res 87:974–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Holderegger C, Sailer I, Schumacher C, Schläpfer R, Hämmerle C, Fisher J (2008) Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 24:944–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trajtenberg CP, Caram SJ, Kiat-amnuay S (2008) Microleakage of all-ceramic crowns using self-etching resin luting agents. Oper Dent 33:392–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hiraishia N, Yiua CKY, Kinga NM, Tay FR (2009) Effect of pulpal pressure on the microtensile bond strength of luting resin cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 25:58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Viotto RG, Kasaz A, Pena CE, Alexandre RS, Arrais CA, Reis AF (2009) Microtensile bond strength of new self-adhesive luting agents and conventional multistep systems. J Prosthet Dent 102:306–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghazy M, El-Mowafy A, Roperto R (2010) Microleakage of porcelain and composite machined crowns cemented with self-adhesive or conventional resin cement. J Prosthodont 19:523–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lührs AK, Guhr S, Günay H, Geurtsen W (2010) Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resins compared to resin cements with etch and rinse adhesives to enamel and dentin in vitro. Clin Oral Invest 14:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Benetii P, Boas Fernandes Junior VV, Gomes Torres CR, Pagani C (2011) Bonding efficacy of new-self-etching, self-adhesive dual-curing resin cements to dental enamel. J Adhes Dent 13:231–234

    Google Scholar 

  25. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Appelt A, Lohbauer U, Naumannd M, Roggendorf M (2011) Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Dent Mater 27:892–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Duarte S, Botta AC, Meire M, Sadan A (2008) Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel. J Prosthet Dent 100:203–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin J, Shinya A, Gomi H, Shinya A (2010) Bonding of self-adhesive resin cements to enamel using different surface treatments and etching pattern evaluations. Dent Mater J 29:425–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2010) Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 12:151–161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taschner M, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Pelka M, Breschi L, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2012) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study. Dent Mater 28:535–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 22:55–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schenke F, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Moder D, Schmalz G (2010) Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. 1-year results. Am J Dent 23:240–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schenke F, Federlijn M, Hiller KA, Moder D, Schmalz G (2012) Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years. Clin Oral Invest 16:451–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G (2005) Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clin Oral Invest 9:161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A (1999) IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years- a clinical study. J Dent 27:325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zimmer S, Göblich O, Rüttermann S, Lang H, Raab WHM, Barthel CR (2008) Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study. Oper Dent 33:484–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Guess P, Strub JR, Steinhart N, Wolkewitz M, Stappert CFJ (2009) All-ceramic partial coverage restorations—midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study. J Dent 37:627–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Frankenberger R (2009) Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite. J Dent 37:813–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lange RT, Pfeiffer P (2009) Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent 34:263–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. van Dijken JWV, Hasselrotb L (2010) A prospective15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 26:929–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kawai K, Isenberg BP, Leinfelder KF (1994) Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. Quintessence Int 25:53–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Krämer N, Kunzelmann KH, Taschner M, Mehl A, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2006) Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res 85:1097–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Belli R, Pelka M, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2009) In vitro wear gap formation of self-adhesive resin cements: A CLSM evaluation. J Dent 37:984–993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV (2003) Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent Res 31:181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Della Bona A, Mecholsky JJ, Anusavice KJ (2004) Fracture behavior of lithia-disilicate and leucite-based ceramics. Dent Mater 20:956–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Bertelli E, Davidson B, Ferrari M (2006) A clinical trial of Empress II porcelain inlays luted to vital teeth with a dual-curing adhesive system and a self-curing resin cement. J Adhes Dent 8:427–431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tagtekin DA, Özyöney G, Yanikoglu F (2009) Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays. Oper Dent 34:369–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Dijken JWV, Hasselrot L, Örmin A, Olofsson AL (2001) Restorations with extensive dentin/enamel-bonded ceramic coverage. A 5-year follow-up. Eur J Oral Sci 109:222–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Reich SM, Wichmann M, Rinne H, Shortall A (2004) Clinical performance of large, all ceramic CAD/CAM generated restorations after three years. J Am Dent Assoc 135:605–612

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Federlin M, Wagner J, Manner T, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2007) Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns. Clin Oral Invest 11:345–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2008) Totally bonded ceramic inalys and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 10:307–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 10:393–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. El-Din SD, Atta O, El-Mowafy O (2010) The postoperative sensitivity of fixed partial dentures cemented with self-adhesive resin cements: a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 141:1459–1466

    Google Scholar 

  59. Spinell T, Schedle A, Watts DC (2009) Polymerization shrinkage kinetics of dimethacrylate resin cements. Dent Mater 25:1058–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Vochrari AD, Eliades G, Hellwig E, Wrbas KT (2010) Water sorption and solubility of four self-etching self-adhesive resin luting agents. J Adhes Dent 12:39–43

    Google Scholar 

  61. De Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Randall RC (2006) Human pulpal response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mater 10:954–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schmid-Schwap M, Franz A, König F, Bristela M, Lucas T, Piehslinger E, Watts DC, Schedle A (2009) Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. Dent Mater 25:360–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bindl A, Mormann WH (2003) Clinical SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111:163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Fasbinder DJ (2006) Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 137:22S–31S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank 3M ESPE for supporting this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Marleen Peumans, M. Voet, J. De Munck, K. Van Landuyt, A. Van Ende & B. Van Meerbeek

Authors
  1. Marleen Peumans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Voet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. De Munck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Van Landuyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Van Ende
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Van Meerbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marleen Peumans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peumans, M., Voet, M., De Munck, J. et al. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Invest 17, 739–750 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0762-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0762-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation