Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, D-35039 Marburg, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2011 Sep;27(9):892-8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.05.007. Epub 2011 Jun 25.
To assess the influence of different temporary restorations and luting techniques of labside and chairside ceramic inlays on enamel defects and marginal integrity.
120 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 1000×50N+25 thermocycles (TC) between +5°C and +55°C; clinical simulation: 100,000×50N+2500 TC) luting gaps, enamel cracks, and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentin were determined under an SEM microscope (200×) using replicas.
Loading 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).
Chairside-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.
评估不同的临时修复和粘固技术对实验室和椅旁陶瓷嵌体的釉质缺陷和边缘完整性的影响。
120 个提取的第三磨牙接受了 MOD 制备，每个近中盒都有限制在釉质或牙本质内的一个盒状间隙。64 个 Cerec 2 嵌体和 56 个 IPS Empress I 嵌体被随机分配到以下组（制作模式：椅旁（CS）=无临时修复（TR），实验室（LS）=用 Luxatemp（L）插入 TempBond NE 的 TR，或 Systemp.inlay（SI）无临时粘结剂），粘固技术：SV=Syntac/Variolink II，RX=RelyX Unicem：A：Cerec 嵌体用（1）CS/SV.（2）CS/SV/Heliobond 分别光固化。（3）CS/RX.（4）LS/L/SV.（5）LS/L/RX.（6）LS/SI/SV.（7）LS/SI/RX.（8）LS/SI/RX 选择性釉质酸蚀。B：Empress.（9）L/SV.（10）L/SV/Heliobond 分别光固化。（11）L/RX.（12）SI/SV.（13）SI/SV，Heliobond 分别光固化。（14）SI/RX.（15）SI/RX 选择性釉质酸蚀后。在热机械加载（TR 1000×50N+25 个温度循环（TC）在+5°C 和+55°C 之间；临床模拟：100000×50N+2500 TC）后，使用复制件在 SEM 显微镜（200×）下确定粘固间隙、釉质裂纹和边缘与釉质和牙本质的适应性。
临时修复体的加载时间对釉质完整性和釉质崩裂有负面影响（p<0.05）。Luxatemp 导致的釉质裂纹比 Systemp.inlay 少（p<0.05）。Syntac/Variolink 在所有组中都比 RelyX Unicem 获得更好的边缘釉质质量（p<0.05）。当不使用临时粘结剂时，牙本质边缘质量无差异（p>0.05）。当使用 RelyX Unicem 时，临时粘结剂对牙本质边缘有负面影响（p<0.05）。
椅旁制作的 Cerec 嵌体由于省略了临时修复体，降低了釉质裂纹和边缘釉质崩裂的风险。Syntac/Variolink 比 RelyX Unicem 表现出更好的性能。
