A 3‐year clinical evaluation of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with two different materials using the CEREC AC chair‐side system

Statement of problem. The introduction of polymer‐infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) materials may provide more options for dentists in restoring short clinical crowns and extensively damaged posterior teeth, but clinical data for their performance are lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the 3‐year performance and survival rates of PICN material with those of conservative ceramic onlay restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth using the CEREC AC chair‐side system. Material and methods. A total of 101 onlay restorations of endodontically treated posterior teeth using the CEREC AC chair‐side system were provided in 93 participants. The 101 teeth were divided into 2 groups: Vita Enamic group and Vitablocs Mark II group. Using the modified US Public Health Service quality evaluation system, 2 calibrated evaluators examined the performance of the onlay restorations over 3 years. The Kaplan‐Meier method was adopted to analyze the survival rate of restorations (&agr;=.05). The log rank test was used to compare the survival rates of the 2 groups. The Fisher exact test was performed to detect differences in the success rates for extensively damaged teeth and short clinical crown restorations between the 2 groups. The Silness and Löe gingival index was also recorded. Results. The restoration survival rates in the 2 groups were 97.0% (Vita Enamic) and 90.7% (Vitablocs Mark II) (P>.05). Five failures were recorded (4.95%). These failures were caused by restoration debonding (60%), ceramic fractures (20%), and tooth fractures (20%). There were no significant differences between the success rates of restoring extensively damaged teeth and short clinical crowns between the 2 groups (P>.05). The periodontal condition of 25% of participants was improved 3 years after the onlay restorations. Conclusions. Onlay restorations of endodontically treated posterior teeth with Vita Enamic using the CEREC AC chair‐side system are clinically promising prosthodontic alternatives, with a survival rate of 97.0% after 3 years. More research is needed to verify the results of this study.

[1]  H Löe,et al.  The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index Systems. , 1967, Journal of periodontology.

[2]  E. Pow,et al.  Comparison of mechanical properties of three machinable ceramics with an experimental fluorophlogopite glass ceramic. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  A. Klink,et al.  Complication and survival of Mark II restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up. , 2013, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[4]  F. Nejatidanesh,et al.  Clinical performance of CEREC AC Bluecam conservative ceramic restorations after five years--A retrospective study. , 2015, Journal of dentistry.

[5]  I. Krejci,et al.  Evidence-based concepts and procedures for bonded inlays and onlays. Part II. Guidelines for cavity preparation and restoration fabrication. , 2015, The international journal of esthetic dentistry.

[6]  Dennis J Fasbinder,et al.  A clinical evaluation of chairside lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns: a two-year report. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[7]  B. Hofner,et al.  Fracture Rates and Lifetime Estimations of CAD/CAM All-ceramic Restorations , 2016, Journal of dental research.

[8]  Albert J Feilzer,et al.  Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. , 2003, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[9]  Gildo Coelho Santos,et al.  Overview of CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. , 2013, General dentistry.

[10]  D. Nathanson,et al.  Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  Norbert Thiel,et al.  In-vitro strength degradation of dental ceramics and novel PICN material by sharp indentation. , 2013, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[12]  G. Ryge,et al.  Reprint of Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[13]  K. Meyenberg.  The ideal restoration of endodontically treated teeth - structural and esthetic considerations: a review of the literature and clinical guidelines for the restorative clinician. , 2013, The European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry.

[14]  Anders Ortorp,et al.  A 5-year retrospective study of survival of zirconia single crowns fitted in a private clinical setting. , 2012, Journal of dentistry.

[15]  Ramakiran Chavali,et al.  Machinability of CAD‐CAM materials , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  I. Camps,et al.  Comparative characterization of a novel cad-cam polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network , 2015, Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry.

[17]  Tobias Otto,et al.  Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[18]  German O Gallucci,et al.  A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single-tooth restorations. , 2009, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[19]  M. Özcan,et al.  Survival Rate of Resin and Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays , 2016, Journal of dental research.

[20]  H. Löe,et al.  PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. I. PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY. , 1963, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[21]  A Ender,et al.  Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. , 2009, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[22]  J. Chidiac,et al.  Considerations for Altering Preparation Designs of Porcelain Inlay/Onlay Restorations for Nonvital Teeth. , 2015, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[23]  D. Dietschi,et al.  Endocrowns: a clinical report. , 2008, Quintessence international.

[24]  Daniel J Poticny,et al.  CAD/CAM in-office technology: innovations after 25 years for predictable, esthetic outcomes. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.