Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up

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

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 12-year clinical performance of sintered (Duceram, Dentsply-Degussa, Dentsply International Inc., PA, USA)—D and pressable (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Leichtenstein)—IPS ceramic inlay and onlay restorations.

Methods

Eighty-six restorations were placed in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years by a single operator. The restorations were luted with dual-cured resin luting material (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Leichtenstein) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at the baseline, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 12 years using the modified USPHS criteria.

Results

At the 12-year recall, 22 patients were evaluated (62.86 %), totalling 48 (55.81 %) restorations. Seven restorations were fractured (one from Duceram and six from IPS), eight restorations presented secondary caries (three from Duceram and five from IPS), nine restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed repair or replacement (two from Duceram and seven from IPS), and four IPS restorations presented pulp sensitivity.

Conclusion

Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests revealed that IPS Empress system showed the best results for color match and surface texture (p < 0.05) but a significant worse result for fracture (p = 0.05). Wilcoxon test showed significant differences in relation to color match, surface texture, marginal discoloration, and marginal integrity between the baseline and 12-year recall for both ceramic systems.

Clinical significance

This long-term clinical study observed that the main reasons for failure of ceramic restorations were related to fracture, recurrent caries, and decreased marginal integrity over time. Carefully monitoring of the ceramic-tooth interface may extend their clinical longevity.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG (2011) The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 55:559–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Griggs JA (2007) Recent advances in materials for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Clin N Am 51:713–727

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly JR, Benetti P (2011) Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 56(Suppl 1):84–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giordano R, McLaren EA (2010) Ceramics overview: classification by microstructure and processing methods. Compend Contin Educ Dent 31:682–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosenblum MA, Schulman A (1997) A review of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 128:297–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guess PC, Schultheis S, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Ferencz JL, Silva NR (2011) All-ceramic systems: laboratory and clinical performance. Dent Clin N Am 55:333–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ (2007) Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 98:389–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Santos Jr GC, Santos MJ, Rizkalla AS (2009) Adhesive cementation of etchable ceramic esthetic restorations. J Can Dent Assoc 75:379–384

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peutzfeldt A (2001) Indirect resin and ceramic systems. Oper Dent 36(Suppl 6):153–176

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dong JK, Luthy H, Wohlwend A, Schärer P (1992) Heat-pressed ceramics: technology and strength. Int J Prosthodont 5:9–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luthy H, Wohlwend A, Schärer P (1992) Heat-pressed ceramics: technology and strength. Int J Prosthodont 5:9–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oh SC, Dong JK, Lüthy H, Schärer P (2000) Strength and microstructure of IPS Empress 2 glass-ceramic after different treatments. Int J Prosthodont 13:468–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheung KC, Darvell BW (2002) Sintering of dental porcelain: effect of time and temperature on appearance and porosity. Dent Mater 18:163–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  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 10:393–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. van Dijken JWV, Hasselrot L (2010) A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 26:929–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Santos MJ, Mondelli RF, Navarro MF, Francischone CE, Rubo JH, Santos Jr GC (2013) Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up. Oper Dent 38:3–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arnelund CF, Johansson A, Ericson M, Häger P, Fyrberg KA (2004) Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting. Int J Prosthodont 17:302–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Galiatsatos AA, Bergou D (2008) Six-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays. Quintessence Int 39:407–412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH (1992) Stresses generated by luting resins during cementation of composite and ceramic inlays. J Oral Rehabil 19:115–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coelho Santos MJ, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2004) Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up. Oper Dent 29:123–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Atali PY, Cakmakcioglu O, Topbasi B, Turkmen SO (2011) IPS Empress onlays luted with two dual-cured resin cements for endodontically treated teeth: a 3-year clinical evaluation. Int J Prosthodont 24:40–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stoll R, Cappel I, Jablonski-Momeni A, Pieper K, Stachniss V (2007) Survival of inlays and partial crowns made of IPS empress after a 10-year observation period and in relation to various treatment parameters. Oper Dent 32:556–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Studer S, Lehner C, Brodbeck U, Schärer P (1996) Short-term results of IPS Empress inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 5:277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Dijken JW, Hasselrot L, Ormin 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 

  29. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Hood JA (2002) Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 15:248–253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Calamia JR (1983) Etched porcelain facial veneers: a new treatment modality based on scientific and clinical evidence. N Y J Dent 53:255–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Giesinger JM, Dumfahrt H (2012) Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodon 25:395–402

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson JY, Stoner BR, Piascik JR, Smith R (2011) Adhesion/cementation to zirconia and other non-silicate ceramics: where are we now? Dent Mater 27:71–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ona M, Watanabe C, Igarashi Y, Wakabayashi N (2011) Influence of preparation design on failure risks of ceramic inlays: a finite element analysis. J Adhes Dent 13:367–373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fusayama T (1980) New concepts in operative dentistry. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., Tokyo, pp. 61–156

  35. Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2012) Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater 28:72–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A (2011) State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater 27:1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brackett MG, Li N, Brackett WW, Sword RJ, Qi YP, Niu LN, Pucci CR, Dib A, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2011) The critical barrier to progress in dentine bonding with the etch-and-rinse technique. J Dent 39:238–248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano DE (2008) Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 24:90–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. De Munck J, Van den Steen PE, Mine A, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Opdenakker G, Van Meerbeek B (2009) Inhibition of enzymatic degradation of adhesive-dentin interfaces. J Dent Res 88:1101–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jain C, Bhargava A, Gupta S, Rath R, Nagpal A, Kumar P (2013) Spectrophotometric evaluation of the color changes of different feldspathic porcelains after exposure to commonly consumed beverages. Eur J Dent 7:172–180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gupta R, Prakash H, Shah N, Jain V (2005) Spectrophotometric evaluation of color changes of various tooth colored veneering materials after exposure to commonly consumed beverages. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 5:72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ghahramanloo A, Madani AS, Sohrabi K, Sabzevari S (2008) An evaluation of color stability of reinforced composite resin compared with dental porcelain in commonly consumed beverages. J Calif Dent Assoc 36:673–680

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Dijken JWV, Höglund-Åberg C, Olofsson AL (1998) Fired ceramic non inlays: a 6-year follow up. J Dent Res 26:219–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gemalmaz D, Özcan M, Alkumru HN (2011) A clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays bonded with different luting agents. J Adhes Dent 3:273–283

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada

    Maria Jacinta Moraes Coelho Santos & Gildo Coelho Santos Jr

  2. Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil

    Maria Cristina Freitas, Larissa Marinho Azevedo, Maria Fidela Navarro, Carlos Eduardo Francischone & Rafael Francisco Mondelli

Authors
  1. Maria Jacinta Moraes Coelho Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Cristina Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larissa Marinho Azevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gildo Coelho Santos Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Fidela Navarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlos Eduardo Francischone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rafael Francisco Mondelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Jacinta Moraes Coelho Santos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santos, M.J.M.C., Freitas, M.C., Azevedo, L.M. et al. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 20, 1683–1690 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1669-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1669-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation