Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: Marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation of CEREC ceramic inlays, CEREC composite inlays and direct composite restorations in unbeveled proximal slot cavities under artificial aging conditions. Two groups of each restoration type were prepared (n = 6), one group with a self-etch adhesive, the other group with H3PO4 enamel etching before the self-etch adhesive application. Replicas were generated before and after long-term thermo-mechanical loading under dentinal fluid simulation and margins were evaluated at ×200 magnification in the scanning electron miscroscope (SEM). Statistically, significant differences were found before and after loading with respect to the percentages of “continuous margins”, the direct composite filling with H3PO4 enamel etching giving the lowest percentages of “continuous margins” after loading (p < 0.05). The highest percentage of “continuous margin” was attained by composite inlays without H3PO4 enamel etching. However, these results were not significantly different from ceramic inlays after stressing. Polymerization shrinkage is still one critical property of composite restorative materials. The marginal adaptation of indirect adhesive proximal slot restorations without enamel bevels both fabricated out of composite and ceramic is better than that of directly placed composite restorations.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson C, Watts D (2004) Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Dent Mater 20:862–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M (2003) Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 89:268–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buonocore M (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34:849–853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burgess JO, Walker RS, Porche CJ, Rappold AJ (2002) Light curing—an update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:889–892

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burke FJ, Watts DC, Wilson NH, Wilson MA (1991) Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Br Dent J 7:269–273

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fett H, Mörmann W, Krejci I, Lutz F (1991) Marginal adaptation of Cerec-MOD inlays in vitro. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on computer restorations. Zurich, Switzerland, pp 393–404

  7. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P (1996) A traumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E (1998) 3 year survival of ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health program in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedl KH, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Bey B (1997) Clinical and quantitative marginal analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:163–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Göhring TN, Peters OA, Lutz F (2001) Marginal adaptation of inlay-retained adhesive fixed partial dentures after mechanical and thermal stress: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1:81–92

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hasselrot L (1993) Tunnel restorations. Swed Dent J 17:173–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hilton T, Schwartz R, Ferracane J (1997) Microleakage of four Class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature. Quintessence Int 28:135–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Houpt M, Fuks A, Eidelman F (1994) The preventive resin (composite resin/sealant) restoration. Nine-year results. Quintessence Int 25:155–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hugo B, Lussi A, Hotz P (1992) The preparation of enamel margin beveling in proximal cavities. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 102:1181–188 (in German)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Schmitz B, Klaiber B (2001) Marginal adaptation of small Class II resin restorations. An in vitro evaluation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:19–27 (in German)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunt PR (1984) A modified class II cavity preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int 10:1011–1018

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hunt PR (1994) Rational cavity design principles. J Esthet Dent 6:245–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jinks GM (1963) Fluoride-impregnated cements and their effect on the activity of interproximal caries. J Dent Child 30:87–92

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaaden C, Powers JM, Friedl KH, Schmalz G (2002) Bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dental hard tissues. Clin Oral Investig 6:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Knight GM (1984) The use of adhesive materials in the conservative restoration of selected posterior teeth. Aust Dent J 29:324–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krejci I, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro test results of the evaluation of dental restoration systems. Correlation with in-vivo results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1445–1449 (in German)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Krejci I, Reich T, Lutz F, Albertoni M (1990) In-vitro test procedure for evaluation of dental restorative systems: 1. Computer-controlled chewing simulator. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:953–960 (in German)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Krejci I, Albertoni M, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro test procedure for evaluation of dental restorative systems: 1. Computer-controlled chewing simulator. 2. Toothbrush-/toothpaste abrasion and chemical degradation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1164–1168 (in German)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krejci I, Kuster M, Lutz F (1993) Influence of dentinal fluid and stress on marginal adaptation of resin composites. J Dent Res 72:490–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krejci I, Lutz F, Krejci D (1995) Sonic/ultrasonic diamond coating instruments for cavity preparation, for contouring and finishing. ZWR 104:781–786 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lu H, Stansbury JW, Dickens SH, Eichmiller FC, Bowman CN (2004) Probing the origins and control of shrinkage stress in dental resin-composites: I. Shrinkage stress characterization technique. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15:1097–1103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lussi A (1995) Damage to neighboring teeth during the preparation of proximal cavities. An in-vivo study. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 10:1259–1264 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lussi A, Kronenberg O, Megert B (2003) The effect of magnification on the iatrogenic damage to adjacent tooth surfaces during Class II preparation. J Dent 31:291–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lutz F, Krejci I, Oldenburg TR (1986) Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int 17:777–784

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F (1991) Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 7:107–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lutz F, Krejci I (1999) Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 12:1138–1144

    Google Scholar 

  33. Manhart J, Schmidt M, Chen HY, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2001) Marginal quality of tooth-colored restorations in class II cavities after artificial aging. Oper Dent 4:357–366

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mehl A, Hickel R (1999) Current state of development and perspectives of machined-based production methods for dental restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2:9–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mertz-fairhust EJ, Curtis JW, Ergle JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM (1998) Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc 129:55–66

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mormann W, Bindl A (2000) The Cerec 3-A quantum leap for computer-aided restorations: initial clinical results. Quintessence Int 10:699–712

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mount GJ (1986) Longevity of glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 55:682–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Munechika T, Suzuki K, Nishiyama M, Ohashi M, Horie K (1984) A comparison of the tensile bond strengths of composite resins to longitudinal and transverse sections of enamel prisms in human teeth. J Dent Res 8:1079–1082

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nordbo H, Leirskar J, Von Der Fehr F (1993) Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for composite resin restorations in class II carious lesions: three year results. J Prosthet Dent 69:155–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Opdam NJM, Roeters JJM, Van Berghem E, Eijsvogels E, Bronkhorst E (2002) Microleakage and damage to adjacent teeth when finishing Class II adhesive preparations using either a sonic device or bur. Am J Dent 15:317–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peutzfeld A, Asmussen E (2004) Determinants of in vitro gap formation of resin composites. J Dent 32:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pyk N, Mejare I (1999) Tunnel restorations in general practice. Influence of some clinical variables on the success rate. Acta Odontol Scand 57:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Reiss B, Walther W (2000) Clinical long-term results and 10 year Kaplan Meier Analysis of Cerec restorations. Int J Comp Dent 3:9–23

    Google Scholar 

  45. Roulet JF, Salchow B, Wald M (1991) Margin analysis of posterior composites in vivo. Dent Mater 7:44–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rusin R (2001) Properties and applications of a new composite block for CAD/CAM. Compendium 22:35–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sarrett DC (2005) Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:9–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schmalz G, Federlin M, Reich E (1995) Effect of dimension of luting space and luting composite on marginal adaptation of a class II ceramic inlay. J Prosthet Dent 73:392–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shimada Y, Tagami J (2003) Effects of regional enamel and prism orientation on resin bonding. Oper Dent 28:20–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sidhu SK, Watson TF (1995) Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 8:59–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Simonsen RJ (1989) Cost effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant at 10 years. Quintessence Int 20:75–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Staehle HJ (1999) Minimally invasive restorative treatment. J Adhes Dent 3:267–284

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stavridakis MM, Lutz F, Johnston WM, Krejci I (2003) Linear displacement and force induced by polymerization shrinkage of resin-based restorative materials. Am J Dent 16:431–438

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Strand GV, Nordbo H, Tveit AB, Espelid I, Wikstrand K, Eide GE (1996) A three-year clinical study of tunnel restorations. Eur J Oral Sci 104:384–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tyas M, Anusavice K, Frencken J, Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry-a review. Int Dent J 50:1–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, de Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2006) Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 34:77–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado M, Delong R, Douglas W (2004) Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 20:554–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Weinmann W, Thalacker CH, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21:68–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, Mccabe JF (1990) The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 169:361–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilder A, May K, Bayne S, Taylor D, Leinfelder K (1999) Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 3:135–142

    Google Scholar 

  61. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (1993) Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int 24:641–658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Yip HK, Samaranayake LP (1998) Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2:148–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cariology and Endodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    T. Bortolotto

  2. Division of Cariology and Endodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, 19, Rue Barthélemy-Menn, CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland

    I. Onisor & I. Krejci

Authors
  1. T. Bortolotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Onisor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Krejci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Krejci.

Additional information

Clinical significance: Polymerization shrinkage is still one critical property of composite restorative materials. The marginal adaptation of indirect adhesive proximal slot restorations without enamel bevels both fabricated out of composite and ceramic is better than that of directly placed composite restorations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bortolotto, T., Onisor, I. & Krejci, I. Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: Marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning. Clin Oral Invest 11, 35–43 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0076-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0076-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation