| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1421406 | Dental Materials | 2012 | 6 Pages |
ObjectivesAim of the present prospective controlled clinical study was to compare the clinical performances of two different cementation procedures to lute IPS Empress inlays and onlays.MethodsEighty-three IPS Empress restorations (70 class-II inlays, 13 onlays/47 premolars, 36 molars) were placed in 30 patients (19 females/11 males, mean age = 39 years). Two cementation procedures were tested: group 1: forty-three restorations were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem, RX, 3M ESPE); group 2: forty restorations were luted with an etch-and-rinse multistep adhesive (Syntac Classic, Ivoclar-Vivadent) and Variolink II low (SV, Ivoclar-Vivadent). All restorations were evaluated after 2 weeks (baseline = 1st recall = R1, n = 83), 6 months (R2, n = 83), 1 year (R3, n = 82), and 2 years (R4, n = 82) by two independent blinded calibrated examiners using modified USPHS criteria.ResultsFrom R1 to R4, one failure occurred in the SV group (at R2) due to marginal enamel chipping. After 2 years of clinical service (R4), better marginal and tooth integrity (p < 0.05) was found in group 2 (SV) compared to the use of the self-adhesive cement (RX, group 1), while no differences were found for all remaining investigated criteria (p > 0.05). The absence of enamel in proximal boxes (10% with no enamel and 51% of the restorations with less than 0.5 mm enamel width at the bottom of the proximal box) did not affect marginal performance (p > 0.05).SignificanceThe self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem showed clinical outcomes similar to a conventional multi-step cementation procedure after 2 years of clinical service for most of the tested criteria.
