Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow up
References (44)
Marginal breakdown of five year old direct composite inlays
Journal of Dentistry
(1996)- et al.
In-vivo evaluation of a feldspathic ceramic system: 2-year result
Journal of Dentistry
(1996) - et al.
Clinical and semiquantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years
Journal of Dentistry
(1995) - et al.
The clinical performance of CAD-CAM-generated ceramic inlays. A four-year study
Journal of the American Dental Association
(1996) - et al.
Marginal break-down of fired ceramic inlays cemented with glass poly-alkenoate (ionomer) cement or resin composite
Journal of Dentistry
(1994) - et al.
Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic
British Dental Journal
(1993) - et al.
- et al.
The porcelain inlay: a historical review
Operative Dentistry
(1990) A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
(1994)- et al.
Three year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
(1994)
A two-year clinical study of posterior etched-porcelain resin-bonded restorations
American Journal of Dentistry
Two-year clinical evaluation of direct porcelain inlays
Journal of Dental Research
2-year clinical comparison of 6 inlay systems
Journal of Dental Research
A clinical evaluation of adhesively luted ceramic inlays
Swedish Dental Journal
Klinische und werkstoffkundliche erfahrungen mit komposit-, keramik-und goldinlays
Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitung
A clinical evaluation of the Optec inlay system
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
A 3-year clinical follow-up study of a ceramic (Optec) inlay system
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
Three-year clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM restorations
Journal Esthetic Dental Association
Ceramic inlays (Cerec) cemented with either a dual-cured or a chemically cured composite resin luting agent
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
Glass-ceramic inlays and onlays made by IPS-Empress: first clinical results
Journal of Dental Research
Cited by (82)
Favorable residual stress induction by resin-cementation on dental porcelain
2017, Dental MaterialsCitation Excerpt :Load-to-failure studies of anatomically representative restorations add little to the mechanistic understanding of resin-cement strengthening and cannot be used to guide materials-development or inform the profession [10,11]. From the results of the two direct clinical comparison studies [2,3], it has become accepted that adhesive cementation of monolithic dental-ceramic restorations fabricated from glassy/glass-ceramic substrates is essential to optimise restoration longevity. When adhesively coupled to the underlying tooth substrate, relatively ‘weak’ ceramic materials demonstrate significantly higher clinical survival rates compared with acid-base cement systems [2,3].
Influence of different adhesive protocols on ceramic bond strength and degree of conversion of resin cements
2015, International Journal of Adhesion and AdhesivesCitation Excerpt :Adhesive protocols containing RelyX U100 produced degree of conversions values that were not statistically different between IPS e.MAX and IPS d.SIGN; for each ceramic system, adhesive protocols containing RelyX U100 produced conversion values that were not statistically different. Since proper adhesive bonding is a determinant factor regarding long-term success of several ceramic restorative procedures in dentistry [2,3,5–7,26–29] different resin cements were evaluated in an attempt to obtain further information about their behavior when distinct adhesive protocols and ceramic types are employed. Two-way ANOVA revealed that the adhesive protocols tested (p<0.001) and the different ceramic systems influenced ceramic bond strength.
Atmospheric moisture effects on the testing rate and cementation seating load following resin-strengthening of a soda lime glass analogue for dental porcelain
2013, Journal of DentistryCitation Excerpt :Clinical evidence to support the use of resin-based adhesive technologies for dental ceramics is evident in the findings of a comprehensive 14 year prospective study of 1444 Dicor restorations reported by Malament and Socransky1,2 and the results of a 6 year follow-up of 115 fired ceramic inlays reported by van Dijken et al.3 The authors demonstrated ceramic restorations were significantly more resistant to fracture when adhesively bonded to the prepared tooth structure using resin-based materials compared with acid–base cements.1–3
Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review
2013, Dental MaterialsInfluence of resin cement polymerization shrinkage on stresses in porcelain crowns
2013, Dental Materials