Short‐Term Results of IPS‐Empress Inlays and Onlays

Studer, Stephan; Lehner, Christian F.; Brodbeck, Urs; Schärer, P

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.1996.tb00512.x

Cited by 45 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bulk fracture is still considered one common problem reported in clinical trials. 26 The failure rate associated with bulk fracture in the present study is in accordance with other studies that performed their evaluations in the same time frame (Arnelund and others, 21 8% after five years; Naeselius and others, 27 7.3% after four years; Krä mer and others, 9 5.5% after four years). Molin and Karlsson 7 investigated the five-year performance of three inlay ceramic systems (CAD-CAM, Vita Cerec-Siemens; a conventional porcelain buildup sintering technique, Mirage, Myron; and a glass ceramic casting high-pressure technique, IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent) and reported that among the 60 ceramic inlays placed, five inlays (8%) fractured within the five-year follow-up period, four being from the IPS Empress system and one from the Cerec system.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…28 Fischer and others 29 evaluated the long-term failure probability of different ceramic materials using a computational method and reported a high tendency for failure of the IPS Empress system (2.6% after one year, 4.6% after five years, and 6.0% after 10 years, respectively). Previous clinical studies that have investigated the IPS Empress system have reported different failure rates due to fracture in different periods of evaluation (Studer and others, 26 2.3% after three years; Galiatsatos and Bergou, 11 3.1% after six years; Frankenberger and others, 10 16% after 12 years). However, it is relevant to take in account that factors other than the ceramic material may have an influence on the restoration survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up

Santos

Mondelli

Navarro

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adhesively bonded ceramic restorations presented satisfactory results after five years of clinical service. There was no significant difference between ceramic systems regarding survival. SUMMARYThis study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rate

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up

Santos

Mondelli

Navarro

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Limitations of prospective studies are generally a selected patient population, a limited observation period and a comparatively small number of treatments [18,[30][31][32]. Another disadvantage of the present study was that the preparation and restoration of selected teeth was not performed by one operator.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years

Schenke¹,

Federlin²,

Hiller³

et al. 2011

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the materials used for luting indirect restorations, growing interest has been directed towards the use of self-adhesive resin cements. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem (RXU) for luting partial ceramic crowns (PCCs). In addition, the influence of selective enamel etching prior to luting (RXU+E) was assessed. Two-year results are reported. Thirty-four patients (68 PCCs) had originally received the intended treatment at baseline (BL). Twenty-nine patients (14 male, 15 female) with a total of 58 PCCs participated in the 2-year recall. In each patient, one PCC had been placed with RXU, one PCC with RXU+E. Restorations were evaluated at BL and 24 months after placement using modified United States Public Health Service criteria for postoperative hypersensitivity, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture and recurrent caries. Additionally, the "percentage failure" within the 2-year recall period for all restorations (n = 68) was calculated according to ADA Program Guidelines. Target value for acceptability of each procedure was <5% failure within 24 m. For statistical analysis of the data, the chi-square test was applied (α = 0.05). The median patient age was 41 years (24-59 years). Median PBI was 8% (5-10%). Twenty-two RXU PCCs were placed in molars, seven in premolars. Twenty-one RXU+E PCCs were placed in molars, eight in premolars. Statistically significant changes were observed for marginal adaptation (MA) and marginal discoloration (MD) between BL and 2 years but not between the two groups (RXU, RXU+E). Percentage of alfa values at BL for MA (RXU, 97% and RXU+E, 100%) and for MD (RXU, 97% and RXU+E, 97%) decreased to RXU, 14% and RXU+E, 28% for MA and to RXU, 50% and RXU+E, 59% for MD after 24 months. Within the observation period, three failures were recorded with RXU (5.1% failure), one failure was recorded for RXU+E (1.7% failure), but a significant influence of selective enamel etching on failure could not be verified. Although the results of the present study reveal a slight tendency for more favourable results if selective enamel etching is applied prior to insertion of ceramic PCCs with a self-adhesive luting material, longer-term evaluation is needed to confirm this. Additional selective enamel etching with a self-adhesive luting material does not considerably improve clinical performance of the restorations within the observation period reported, neither does it impose a hazard with respect to postoperative hypersensitivity.

show abstract

“…A total of 46 studies [7,8,10,14,15,17,20,22,24,25,31,33,34,37,38,39,41,46,47,48,51,53,55,58,60,61,63,64,65,66,67,70,71,73,78,81,83,85,88,89,92,93,95,96,97,99], including 35 full papers and 11 abstracts, were finally subjected to systematic quality assessment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen studies recruited subjects from dental school patients [14,17,24,31,37,38,46,47,60,64,65,67,78,89,95,97]. Five involved patients who attended private practice [15,22,33,41,53], while another four [58,83,85,96] recruited participants from dental school patients, private practices, and community health centers.…”

Section: Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of ceramic inlays

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of ceramic inlays, assess the quality of published clinical studies, and determine the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays compared to other forms of posterior restorations. Prospective clinical trials of ceramic inlays published from 1990 to 2001 were retrieved by electronic and hand searching. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by two calibrated reviewers using a standardised checklist. The clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays was evaluated in terms of failure rate, postoperative pain, and aesthetics. The results were compared to those of other forms of posterior restorations by means of an odds ratio. Among 46 articles selected for quality assessment, only five (10.6%) reported randomised controlled trials and 15 (32.6%) presented controlled clinical trials. The remaining 26 papers (56.5%) were longitudinal clinical trials lacking control groups. Only three papers fulfilled the requirement for statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays. The results indicate no significant differences in longevity or postoperative sensitivity between ceramic and other posterior restorations over assessment periods of up to 1 year. It is concluded that no strong evidence is available to confirm the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays in comparison to other posterior restorations. Greater attention is required to the design and reporting of studies to improve the quality of clinical trials of ceramic inlays.

show abstract

Short‐Term Results of IPS‐Empress Inlays and Onlays

Abstract: The initial clinical results of this esthetic restorative material are encouraging. However, because of fatigue phenomena for all ceramic materials, a longer observation period is needed to provide a definitive prognosis of the long-term clinical behavior.

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up

Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up

Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years

Systematic review of ceramic inlays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About