Clinical Evaluation of Three Types of CAD/CAM Inlay/ Onlay Materials After 1-Year Clinical Follow Up

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry (2019) 27, 131–140

Clinical Evaluation of Three Types of Cad/Cam Inlay/ Onlay Materials After 1-Year Clinical Follow Up

SEM Clinical Evaluation CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Ceramics CAD CAM Resin Composite

Dr. Yılmaz Umut Aslan*
(Assist Prof, PhD)

Dr. Elif Coskun*
(PhD)

Prof. Yasemin Ozkan*
(Prof Dr, PhD)

Prof. Michel Dard§
(DDS, Ms, PhD)

Address for Correspondence

Prof. Yasemin Ozkan
Email: prof.dr.yozkan@gmail.com
* University of Marmara, Faculty of Dentistry,
Department of Prosthodontics
University of Columbia, College of Dental
Medicine, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and
Rehabilitation Sciences, New York, USA and
Global Medical Director , Straumann Group

§

Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance and the marginal adaptation of inlay/ onlay restorations made of lithium of a new lithium disilicate strengthened, lithium alumino-silicate glass-ceramic (LAS) material compared with a conventional lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LDS) and new-generation polymer-based CAD/CAM resin composite (CS) materials over one year. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five inlay-onlay restorations were placed in 35 patients. The restorations were assigned and randomized to three groups as LDS, LAS, and CS. Clinical evaluations were performed after one week, six months, and one year after the cementation, according to the modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The marginal quality analyses of 21 samples (n=7) were assessed under a scanning electron microscope. The data were analyzed by using Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, Chi-square and Paired t-tests (p<0.05). Results: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found between groups in the modified USPHS, gingival index, and plaque index evaluations, and the total success rate was 100% for three groups after one year. Following SEM evaluations in all groups, continuous margin percentages were decreased, but these results were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: Lithium disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass-ceramics can be considered a reliable material for an option for posterior onlay/inlay restorations.

There has been a rapid evolution of restorative materials in digital dentistry over the last decade.1-4 All-ceramic inlays and onlays have become popular in restorative dentistry due to their high aesthetic quality, durability, wear resistance, color stability, biocompatibility, and conservative treatment, with high long-term survival rates.5-9 Development with of CAD-CAM technology is now commonly used for the fabrication of indirect esthetic restorations, and ceramic restorations can be manufactured in a single appointment. The impressions are taken with digital intraoral scanners and transferred directly to the milling device. Thus, the workflow chain is accelerated, and the process errors arising from impressiontaking and model fabrication are eliminated.10 Several chairside CAD/CAM ceramic blocks have been commonly used for this purpose in routine clinical practice.11-17 There are several ways to classify dental ceramics, including clinical indications, composition, microstructure, etching, processing methods, firing temperatures, translucency, fracture resistance and antagonist wear.1-3,11 On the other hand, new restorative materials that have recently been launched in the dental market are not easily classi-

Received: 18.12.2018 Accepted: 31.07.2019

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ejprd.org - Published by Dennis Barber Journals.

EJPRD

Copyright ©2019 by Dennis Barber Ltd. All rights reserved.