A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin–enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages

Dijken, Jan W.V. van; Hasselrot, L

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2010.05.008

Cited by 109 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The negative effect of bruxism or parafunctional habits on posterior restoration survival was observed in other types of restorative material such as amalgam 23 and partial-crown ceramic restorations. 24 In a clinical study on the restoration of severe tooth wear, mainly including bruxing patients, the predominant restoration failure was fracture. 25 In a study that evaluated build-up restorations placed in worn anterior teeth, fracture of tooth or restoration (61%) and restoration loss (30%) were the most observed reasons of failed restorations, while caries represented only 4% of failures.…”

Section: Bruxism/parafunctional Habitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composites resins have become the first choice for direct anterior and posterior restorations. The great popularity is related to their esthetic appearance and reduced need of sound tissue removal as compared with former treatments. Several studies have demonstrated that composite restorations may last long in clinical service. In this review we discuss the factors playing a role on the long-term longevity. Composite restorations have demonstrated a good clinical performance with annual failure rates varying from 1% to 3% in posterior teeth and 1% to 5% in anterior teeth. Factors related to the patients such as caries risk and occlusal stress risk, in addition to socioeconomic factors, may affect the survival significantly. Characteristics of the clinical operators, particularly their decision making when it comes to observing or approaching an existing restoration, are decisive for longevity. Cavity features such as the number of restored walls, composite volume, and presence of endodontic treatment are of major importance and may dictate the service time of the restorative approach. The choice of restorative composite seems to have a minor effect on longevity provided that appropriate technical procedures are used. The main reasons for failure in posterior teeth are secondary caries and fracture (restoration or tooth/restoration), while in anterior teeth esthetic concerns are the main reasons leading to restoration failures. Composite resin restorations can be considered a reliable treatment as long as both the professional and the patient are aware of the factors involved in restoration failures.

show abstract

Section: Bruxism/parafunctional Habitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Die kommerziellen Silikatglaskeramiken können in drei Gruppen nach der hauptsächlich kristallisierenden Mineralphase eingeteilt werden (Beall 1992 (Conrad et al 2007, Manhart et al 2004, Peumans et al 2004, Van Dijken et al 2010.…”

Section: Dentale Keramikenunclassified

Klinische Erfahrungen mit silikatkeramischen Restaurationen

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung: Der zunehmende Wunsch der Patienten nach ästhetischen Restaurationen hat das Interesse an vollkeramischen Restaurationen als biokompatibel und funktionell zufriedenstellende Alternative zu konventionellen restaurativen Materialien verstärkt. Silikatkeramiken verfügen mit Veneer-, Inlay-, Onlay-und Kronenversorgungen über ein weites Indikationsspektrum. Klinische Langzeitergebnisse und Gründe für Mißerfolge werden besprochen. Desweiteren stellt die Arbeit das Innsbruck Zementierungsprotokoll für die adhäsive Befestigung der Silkatkeramiken vor. Schlüsselwörter: Silikatkeramik, Langzeiterfolg, adhäsive BefestigungClinical experience with silicate ceramic restorations Summary: The demand for esthetic restorations has resulted in an increased use of dental ceramics as a biocompatible and functional sufficient alternative to conventional restorative materials. Silicate ceramic restorations are widely used for veneers, inlays, onlays and crowns in dentistry. Longevity and reasons for failure are reviewed. Additionally, this article addresses the Innsbruck practical guidelines regarding indications and detailed cementation procedure for silicate ceramics.

show abstract

“…The success and the longevity of teeth restorations depend on not only the restorative material but also preservation of tooth structure 13) . The teeth with mesiooccluso-distal (MOD) cavity are subjected to a significant loss of tooth structure as a result of caries or aging restorations 13,14) and are considered more susceptible to fracture than intact teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The teeth with mesiooccluso-distal (MOD) cavity are subjected to a significant loss of tooth structure as a result of caries or aging restorations 13,14) and are considered more susceptible to fracture than intact teeth. Cavity preparations with or without a proximal box have been used for MOD cavities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of different composite materials and cavity preparation designs on the fracture resistance of mesio-occluso-distal inlay restoration

Tekçe

Pala

Demırcı

et al. 2016

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study to evaluate the fracture resistance of a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three indirect composite materials for three different mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) inlay cavity designs. A total of 120 mandibular third molar were divided into three groups: (G1) non-proximal box, (G2) 2-mm proximal box, and (G3) 4-mm proximal box. Each cavity design received four composite materials: Estenia, Epricord (Kuraray, Japan), Tescera (Bisco, USA), and Cerasmart CAD/CAM blocks (GC, USA). The specimens were subjected to a compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data was analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc test (p<0.05). Estenia exhibited significantly higher fracture strength than Epricord and Cerasmart in G1. In G2 and G3, there was no significant difference among the four materials. Using a non-proximal box design for the cavity can improve the fracture resistance of the inlay restoration.

show abstract

A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin–enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages

Cited by 109 publications

References 23 publications

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?

Klinische Erfahrungen mit silikatkeramischen Restaurationen

Influence of different composite materials and cavity preparation designs on the fracture resistance of mesio-occluso-distal inlay restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About