CAD/CAM SİSTEMİYLE HAZIRLANAN İKİ YÜZLÜ SINIF 2 NANO SERAMİK REZİN İNLEY RESTORASYONLARIN BİR YILLIK KLİNİK PERFORMANSININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2017, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 79 - 87, 14.06.2017

Ayşe Tuğçe Tunaç , Esra Uzer Çelik Bilal Yaşa

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.321454

Abstract

Amaç: Bu randomize, kontrollü ve tek merkezli
klinik çalışmanın amacı, CAD/CAM sistemiyle hazırlanan iki yüzlü sınıf 2 nano
seramik rezin inley restorasyonların 1 yıllık klinik performansını direkt
kompozit rezin restorasyonlarla karşılaştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: İki yüzlü (MO veya OD) çürük lezyonu veya değiştirilmesi gereken eski
restorasyona sahip 120 adet diş çalışmaya dahil edildi ve rastgele iki gruba
ayrıldı. Deney grubundaki restorasyonlar CAD/CAM sistemi kullanılarak nano
seramik rezin bloklar (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, ABD) ile üretilirken, kontrol
grubundaki direkt kompozit rezin restorasyonlar için üç aşamalı etch-and-rinse
dentin adeziv sistemiyle (Optibond
FL, Kerr, ABD) birlikte posterior nanohibrit bir kompozit rezin
(Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japonya) kullanıldı. Test edilen tüm restoratif materyaller üretici firmaların
önerileri doğrultusunda uygulandı. Klinik değerlendirmeler 1. haftada, 6. ayda
ve 1. yılda FDI kriterleri kullanılarak yapıldı. Veriler  Friedman’s ANOVA ve Mann-Whitney U testleri
ile analiz edildi (a = 0.05).

Bulgular: Birinci yılın sonunda tüm restorasyonlar ideal veya klinik girişim
gerektirmeyen kabul edilebilir klinik performans gösterdi. Tüm kriterlerde iki
grup arasında istatistiksel olarak herhangi bir fark gözlenmedi. Sadece 1.
yılda direkt kompozit rezin restorasyonların yüzey parlaklığında 2 skoruna
doğru anlamlı bir azalma görüldü (p =0,046).

Sonuç: CAD/CAM sistemiyle hazırlanan nano seramik rezin inley restorasyonların
1 yıllık klinik performansı FDI kriterlerine göre başarılı bulunmuştur.

Anahtar
kelimeler: CAD/CAM, inleyler, rezin nano seramik, klinik
performans

EVALUATION
OF THE CLINICAL PERFORMANCE OF CAD/CAM FABRICATED TWO SURFACE CLASS II RESIN
NANO CERAMIC INLAY RESTORATIONS

ABSTRACT

 

Aim: The aim of this
randomized, controlled, single centre clinical trial was to evaluate the one
year clinical performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin nano-ceramic inlay
restorations in two surface class II cavities in comparison with direct
posterior composite restorations.

Materials and Methods:
One hundred and twenty 2-surface (MO/OD) carious lesions or old restorations
that needed to be replaced were included and randomly assigned into two groups.
The restorations in experimental group were fabricated by a CAD/CAM system with
resin nano ceramic blocks (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, USA), while a posterior
nanohybrid composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray,
Japan) was used for
direct posterior composite restorations in control group with a three-step etch
& rinse dentin adhesive system (Optibond FL, Kerr, USA). All tested restorative materials were used according
to the manufacturers’ instructions. Clinical evaluation was performed after 1
week, 6 months and 1 year according to the FDI criteria. The data were analysed
using Friedman’s ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests (a = 0.05).

Results: After 1 year, all restorations were clinically
acceptable with no need for clinical attempt. Considering all criteria, the
differences between two groups were not statistically significant. Only surface
lustre of direct composite restorations significantly reduced to score 2 after
1 year (p =0.046).

Conclusion: The
clinical performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin nano ceramic inlay
restorations was found successful according to FDI criteria after 1 year.

Key words: CAD/CAM,
inlays, resin nano ceramic, clinical performance

Keywords

CAD/CAM, inleyler, rezin nano seramik

References

• 1. Keshvad A, Hooshmand T, Asefzadeh F, Khalilinejad F, Alihemmati M, Van Noort R. Marginal gap, internal fit and fracture load of leucite‐reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot‐pressed techniques. J Prosthodont 2011;20:535-40.
• 2. Öztürk Ö. Seramik inley restorasyonlar. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2015;10:118-24.
• 3. Şahin E, Aktaş DG, Özcan DN, Aydın DDH, Akça K. Restoratif diş hekimliğinde CAD/CAM klinik uygulamalar: Sirona CEREC sistemi. Hacettepe Dis Hek Fak Derg 2009;33:34-40.
• 4. Fasbinder DJ. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:22S-31S.
• 5. Martin N, Jedynakiewicz N. Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 1999;15:54-61.
• 6. Brauner AW, Bieniek KW. Seven years of clinical experience with the CEREC inlay system. CAD/CAM in aesthetic dentistry: CEREC. 1996;10:217-228.
• 7. Chabouis HF, Faugeron VS, Attal J-P. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29:1209-18.
• 8. Koller M, Arnetzl G, Holly L, Arnetzl G. Lava ultimate resin nano ceramic for CAD/CAM: customization case study. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 15:159-64.
• 9. Fleming M. In-office milling: maximizing aesthetics and efficiency. Dent Today 2012;31:140-2.
• 10. https://www.e-calib.info/ Erişim: 23.08.2016.
• 11. Kim J, Shin W. How to do random allocation (randomization). Clin Orthop Surg. 2014;6:103-9.
• 12. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation - Clinical Criteria for the Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Restorations. Update and Clinical Examples. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:259-72.
• 13. Hickel R, Dasch W, Mehl A, Kremers L. CAD/CAM–Fillings of the future? Int Dent J 1997;47:247-58.
• 14. Mehl A, Hickel R. A new optical 3D-scanning system for CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent 1999;2:129-36 . 15. Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 2011;27:339-47.
• 16. Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Trottmann A, Özcan M, Fischer J, Hämmerle CH. Load-bearing capacity of CAD/CAM milled polymeric three-unit fixed dental prostheses: Effect of aging regimens. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1669-77.
• 17. Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(2):299-308.
• 18. Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Schmutz F, Trottmann A, Roos M, Hämmerle CH. Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:102-12.
• 19. Arenholt‐Bindslev D. Environmental aspects of dental filling materials. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106:713-20.
• 20. Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris J, Navarro M, de Carvalho RM. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11:25-32.
• 21. Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 2005;33:499-507.
• 22. Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann K-H, Hickel R. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:391-7.
• 23. Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent 2013;38:E31-E41.
• 24. Dukic W, Dukic O, Milardovic S, Delija B. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent 2010;35:156-64.
• 25. Lange R, Pfeiffer P. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34:263-72.
• 26. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K. The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1714-23.
• 27. Fasbinder DJ. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137:22S-31S.
• 28. Cetin AR, Unlu N. One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:620-6.