- Email: [email protected]
Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: A 4-year retrospective study
258
Volume 100 Issue 4 18.Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Eckrote KA, Goldberg AJ. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced fixed bridges. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:1524-34. 19.Freilich MA, Duncan JP, Meiers JC, Goldberg AJ. Preimpregnated, fiber-reinforced prostheses. Part I. Basic rationale and complete-coverage and intracoronal fixed partial denture designs. Quintessence Int 1998;29:689-96. 20.Ricketts RM. Provocations and perceptions in craniofacial orthopedics: dental science and facial art/parts 1 and 2. Vol. 1. Denver: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics; 1990. p. 702-3. 21.Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a directbonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int 2002;33:579-83. 22.Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Experimental design of FPD made of allceramics and fibre-reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2000;16:159-65.
23.Ferracane JL. Materials in dentistry: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. p. 74-82. 24.Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, et al. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2004;96:412-7. 25.Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2001;32:269-81. 26.Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Bond durability of the resin-bonded and silane treated ceramic surface. Dent Mater 2002;18;179-88. 27.Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Hood JA. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15;248-53. 28.Shen C, Oh WS, Williams JR. Effect of post-silanization drying on the bond strength of composite to ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:453-8.
29.Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater 1992;8:238-40. 30.Bailey JH. Porcelain-to-composite bond strengths using four organosilane materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:174-7. 31.Llobell A, Nicholls JI, Kois JC, Daly CH. Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:205-13. 32.Chiche GJ, Pinault A. Esthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1994. p. 115-42. 33.O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 132-55. Corresponding author: Dr Sebnem Begum Turker Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Buyuk Ciftlik Sok. No: 6 34365 Nisantasi Istanbul TURKEY Fax: +902122465247 E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2008 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: A 4-year retrospective study Naeselius K, Arnelund CF, Molin MK. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:40-4. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of extensive Empress onlays retained with resin-bonded cement. Materials and Methods: One hundred thirty extensive ceramic onlays were placed in premolar and molar regions in 91 patients treated by 2 general practitioners between 1997 and 2000. Seventy-seven percent of the constructions were luted with chemically cured resin composite cement and 23% were luted with dual-cured resin cement. Fifty-nine patients with 81 restorations were clinically evaluated independently by 2 calibrated examiners using the California Dental Association protocol. The mean time in function for all restorations at examination was 49 months. Results: Seventy-five (93%) onlays were still in function after 4 years. Six onlays (7.3%) failed; 1 had lost retention as a result of caries, and 5 had fractured. All failures were in molar regions. Conclusions: Ceramic onlay therapy is an acceptable treatment alternative over a 4-year period, but further long-term data are necessary before this treatment should be considered for general dental practice. Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Turker and Sener
Volume 100 Issue 4 18.Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Eckrote KA, Goldberg AJ. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced fixed bridges. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:1524-34. 19.Freilich MA, Duncan JP, Meiers JC, Goldberg AJ. Preimpregnated, fiber-reinforced prostheses. Part I. Basic rationale and complete-coverage and intracoronal fixed partial denture designs. Quintessence Int 1998;29:689-96. 20.Ricketts RM. Provocations and perceptions in craniofacial orthopedics: dental science and facial art/parts 1 and 2. Vol. 1. Denver: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics; 1990. p. 702-3. 21.Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a directbonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int 2002;33:579-83. 22.Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Experimental design of FPD made of allceramics and fibre-reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2000;16:159-65.
23.Ferracane JL. Materials in dentistry: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. p. 74-82. 24.Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, et al. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2004;96:412-7. 25.Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2001;32:269-81. 26.Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Bond durability of the resin-bonded and silane treated ceramic surface. Dent Mater 2002;18;179-88. 27.Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Hood JA. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15;248-53. 28.Shen C, Oh WS, Williams JR. Effect of post-silanization drying on the bond strength of composite to ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:453-8.
29.Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater 1992;8:238-40. 30.Bailey JH. Porcelain-to-composite bond strengths using four organosilane materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:174-7. 31.Llobell A, Nicholls JI, Kois JC, Daly CH. Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:205-13. 32.Chiche GJ, Pinault A. Esthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1994. p. 115-42. 33.O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 132-55. Corresponding author: Dr Sebnem Begum Turker Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Buyuk Ciftlik Sok. No: 6 34365 Nisantasi Istanbul TURKEY Fax: +902122465247 E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2008 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: A 4-year retrospective study Naeselius K, Arnelund CF, Molin MK. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:40-4. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of extensive Empress onlays retained with resin-bonded cement. Materials and Methods: One hundred thirty extensive ceramic onlays were placed in premolar and molar regions in 91 patients treated by 2 general practitioners between 1997 and 2000. Seventy-seven percent of the constructions were luted with chemically cured resin composite cement and 23% were luted with dual-cured resin cement. Fifty-nine patients with 81 restorations were clinically evaluated independently by 2 calibrated examiners using the California Dental Association protocol. The mean time in function for all restorations at examination was 49 months. Results: Seventy-five (93%) onlays were still in function after 4 years. Six onlays (7.3%) failed; 1 had lost retention as a result of caries, and 5 had fractured. All failures were in molar regions. Conclusions: Ceramic onlay therapy is an acceptable treatment alternative over a 4-year period, but further long-term data are necessary before this treatment should be considered for general dental practice. Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Turker and Sener