کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
1422356 986444 2011 7 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: Effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity
موضوعات مرتبط
مهندسی و علوم پایه مهندسی مواد بیومتریال
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: Effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity
چکیده انگلیسی

ObjectivesTo assess the influence of different temporary restorations and luting techniques of labside and chairside ceramic inlays on enamel defects and marginal integrity.Methods120 extracted human third molars received MOD preparations with one proximal box each limited in either enamel or dentin. 64 Cerec 2 inlays and 56 IPS Empress I inlays were randomly assigned to the following groups (fabrication mode: chairside (CS) = no temporary restoration (TR), labside (LS) = TR with Luxatemp (L) inserted with TempBond NE, or Systemp.inlay (SI) without temporary cement), luting technique: SV = Syntac/Variolink II, RX = RelyX Unicem: A: Cerec inlays were luted with (1) CS/SV. (2) CS/SV/Heliobond separately light-cured. (3) CS/RX. (4) LS/L/SV. (5) LS/L/RX. (6) LS/SI/SV. (7) LS/SI/RX. (8) LS/SI/RX with selective enamel etching. B: Empress. (9) L/SV. (10) L/SV/Heliobond separately light-cured. (11) L/RX. (12) SI/SV. (13) SI/SV, Heliobond separately lightcured. (14) SI/RX. (15) SI/RX after selective enamel etching. Before and after thermomechanical loading (TML: loading time of TR 1000 × 50 N + 25 thermocycles (TC) between +5 °C and +55 °C; clinical simulation: 100,000 × 50 N + 2500 TC) luting gaps, enamel cracks, and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentin were determined under an SEM microscope (200×) using replicas.ResultsLoading time of temporary restorations negatively affected enamel integrity and enamel chipping (p < 0.05). Luxatemp resulted in less enamel cracks than Systemp.inlay (p < 0.05). Syntac/Variolink achieved better marginal enamel quality than RelyX Unicem in all groups (p < 0.05). Marginal quality in dentin revealed no differences when no temporary cement was used (p > 0.05). Temporary cement negatively affected dentin margins when RelyX Unicem was used (p < 0.05).SignificanceChairside-fabricated Cerec inlays reduce the risk of enamel cracks and marginal enamel chipping due to omitted temporary restorations. Syntac/Variolink revealed a significantly better performance than RelyX Unicem.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Dental Materials - Volume 27, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 892–898
نویسندگان
, , , , , ,