Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1975–1984 | Cite as

Effect of selective enamel etching on clinical performance of CAD/CAM partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement

  • Marianne FederlinEmail author
  • Karl-Anton Hiller
  • Gottfried Schmalz
Original Article



This study was conducted to evaluate a self-adhesive resin luting cement [RelyX Unicem 3MESPE–RXU] for luting partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) with and without selective enamel etching in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Materials and methods

Thirty-four patients had received the intended treatment. Two PCCs (Vita Mark II; Cerec 3D; Sirona) had been placed in a split-mouth design: one with RXU without enamel etching (RXU), the other with RXU with selective enamel etching (RXU + E). Restorations were evaluated at baseline (BL) and after 12, 24, and 36 months (USPHS criteria). For statistical analysis, the Chi-square test was applied (α = 0.05). Clinical survival of all restorations (n = 68) after 3 years was determined using Kaplan–Meier analysis.


Twenty three patients (12 male/11 female) were available for clinical evaluation after 3 years. 19 RXU-PCCs were placed in molars, four in premolars, 18 RXU + E–PCCs in molars, five in premolars. Concerning clinical changes, no significant differences were found between luting strategies RXU/RXU + E at all recalls. Statistically significant changes over time were observed for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration between BL and 36 m for RXU and RXU + E. For RXU + E, postoperative hypersensitivities decreased significantly from BL (n = 6) to 36 m (n = 0). Of the 68 restorations originally included, eight RXU and four RXU + E restorations failed. At 3 years, Kaplan–Meier survival of RXU was 72.9 %, that of RXU + E 87.6 %. Survival rates were not statistically significant different.


Although clinical survival of RXU + E is slightly better at 3 years, restorations of both groups perform similar with respect to clinical changes over time as evaluated by modified USPHS criteria.

Clinical relevance

The self-adhesive resin cement RXU can be used in conjunction with selective enamel etching, because survival rates of PCCs in the RXU + E group were not lower but, as a trend, even better than without enamel etching.


Controlled Prospective clinical study Partial ceramic crowns Clinical evaluation Self-adhesive cement Selective enamel etching 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    ADA Council on scientific affairs (2003) Tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Acceptance program guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aschenbrenner CM, Lang R, Handel G, Behr M (2012) Analysis of marginal adaptation and sealing to enamel and dentin of four self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Investig 16:191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 Investig 13:459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belli R, Pelka M, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2009) In vitro wear gap formation of self–adhesive resin cements: a CLSM evaluation. J Dent 37:984–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burgess JO, Ghuman T, Cakir D (2010) Self-adhesive resin cements. J Esthet Restor Dent 22:412–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeMunck 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 20:963–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Federlin M, Krifka S, Herpich M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2007) Partial ceramic crowns: influence of ceramic thickness, preparation design and luting material on fracture resistance and marginal integrity in vitro. Oper Dent 32:251–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Federlin M, Schmidt S, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2004) Partial ceramic crowns: influence of preparation design and luting material on internal adaption. Oper Dent 29:560–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Federlin M, Sipos C, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2005) Partial ceramic crowns. Influence of preparation design and luting material on margin integrity—a scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Investig 9:8–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2010) Controlled, prospective clinical split-mouth study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results. Am J Dent 23:161–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felden A, Schmalz G, Federlin M, Hiller KA (1998) Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 2:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ (2011) Self-adhesive resin cements—chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 38:295–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A (2000) Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 25:324–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dent Mater. doi: 10.1016/ Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 10:393–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M (2008) Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent 10:339–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerth H, Dammaschke T, Zücher H, Schäfer E (2006) Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites. A comparative study. Dent Mater 22:934–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goracci C, Cury AH, Cantoro A, Papacchini F, Tay FR, Ferrari M (2006) Microtensile bond strength and interfacial properties of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements used to lute composite onlays under different seating forces. J Adhes Dent 8:327–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hitz T, Stawarczyk B, Fischer J, Hammerle CH, Sailer I (2012) Are self-adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength. Dent Mater 28:1183–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ilie N, Simon A (2012) Effect of curing mode on the micro-mechanical properties of dual-cured self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Investig 16:505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2005) Clinical performance of bonded leucit-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 21:262–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A (1999) IPS empress inlays and onlays after four years—a clinical study. J Dent 27:325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krejci I, Krejci D, Lutz F (1992) Clinical evaluation of a new pressed glass ceramic inlay material over 1.5 years. Quintessence Int 23:181–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin J, Shinya A, Gomi H, Shinya A (2010) Bonding of self-adhesive resin cements to enamel using different surface treatments: bond strength and etching pattern evaluations. Dent Mater J 29:425–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mörmann WH, Götsch T, Krejci I, Lutz F, Barbakow F (1991) Clinical status of 94 Cerec ceramic inlays after 3 years in situ. In: Mörmann WH (ed) International symposium on computer restorations. The state of the art of the Cerec method (Proceedings). Quintessenz, Berlin, pp 355–363Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Needleman I, Worthington H, Moher D, Schulz K, Altmann DG (2008) Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health. Am J Dent 21:7–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peumans M, Voet M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 17:739–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Flury S (2011) Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents. Oper Dent 36:266–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saskalauskaite E, Tam LE, McComb D (2008) Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and pH profile of self-etch resin luting cements. J Prosthodont 17:262–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saxer UP, Muhlemann HR (1975) Motivation and education. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd 85:905–919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schenke F, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2008) Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with differnet luting techniques and materials. Oper Dent 33–5:516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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 23:240–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schenke F, Federlin 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 Investig 16:451–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stamatacos C, Simon JF (2013) Cementation of indirect restorations: an overview of resin cements. Compend Contin Educ Dent 34(42–4):46Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Studer SP, Lehner C, Brodbeck U, Schärer P (1996) Short-term results of IPS Empress inlays and onlays. J Prosthod 5:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taschner M, Kramer 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 28:535–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tobi H, Kreulen CM, Gruythuysen RJ, van Amerongen WE (1998) The analysis of restoration survival data in split-mouth designs. J Dent 26(4):293–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De MJ, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van MB (2006) Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 34:77–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wagner J, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2003) Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crowns. Clin Oral Investig 7:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilson AD, Prosser HJ, Powis DM (1983) Mechanism of adhesion of polyelectrolyte cements to hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res 590–592Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Federlin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karl-Anton Hiller
    • 1
  • Gottfried Schmalz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Dental SchoolUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations