Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical split-mouth evaluation of partial ceramic crowns luted with a new, universal adhesive system/resin cement: results after 18 months

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

A new universal adhesive with corresponding luting composite was recently marketed which can be used both, in a self-etch or in an etch-and-rinse mode. In this study, the clinical performance of partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) inserted with this adhesive and the corresponding luting material used in a self-etch or selective etch approach was compared with a self-adhesive universal luting material.

Material and methods

Three PCCs were placed in a split-mouth design in 50 patients. Two PCCs were luted with a combination of a universal adhesive/resin cement (Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) with (SB+E)/without (SB−E) selective enamel etching. Another PCC was luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2, 3M ESPE). Forty-eight patients were evaluated clinically according to FDI criteria at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 months. For statistical analyses, the chi-square test (α = 0.05) and Kaplan–Meier analysis were applied.

Results

Clinically, no statistically significant differences between groups were detected over time. Within groups, clinically significant increase for criterion “marginal staining” was detected for SB−E over 18 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significantly higher retention rates for SB+E (97.8 %) and SB−E (95.6 %) in comparison to RXU2 (75.6 %).

Conclusion

The 18-month clinical performance of a new universal adhesive/composite combination showed no differences with respect to bonding strategy and may be recommended for luting PCCs. Longer-term evaluation is needed to confirm superiority of SB+E over SB−E.

Clinical relevance

At 18 months, the new multi-mode adhesive, Scotchbond Universal, showed clinically reliable results when used for luting PCCs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2010) Controlled, prospective clinical split-mouth study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results. Am J Dent 23:161–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Felden A, Schmalz G, Hiller KA (2000) Retrospective clinical study and survival analysis on partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 4:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2008) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 10:393–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reiss B (2006) Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. Int J Comput Dent 9:11–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zimmer S, Gohlich O, Ruttermann S, Lang H, Raab WH, Barthel CR (2008) Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study. Oper Dent 33:484–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeMunck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2004) Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 20:963–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible RB, Nikolaenko SA, Naumann M (2008) Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent Mater 24:185–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Feitosa SA, Corazza PH, Cesar PF, Bottino MA, Valandro LF (2014) Pressable feldspathic inlays in premolars: effect of cementation strategy and mechanical cycling on the adhesive bond between dentin and restoration. J Adhes Dent 16:147–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Munoz M, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V, Reis A, Campanha N, Loguercio A (2014) In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent: epub ahead of print

  10. Schenke F, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2008) Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with different luting techniques and materials. Oper Dent 33-5:516–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schenke F, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Moder D, Schmalz G (2012) Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 16:451–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Taschner M, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Pelka M, Breschi L, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2012) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study. Dent Mater 28:535–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M (2008) Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent 10:339–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De MJ, Van LK, Lambrechts P, Van MB (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Perdigao J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC (2012) Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent 25:153–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS (2014) Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent 16:243–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigao J (2013) A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 25:55–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39:113–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 14:349–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. ADA Council on scientific affairs (2003) Tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Acceptance program guidelines

  21. Needleman I, Worthington H, Moher D, Schulz K, Altmann DG (2008) Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health. Am J Dent 21:7–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne SC, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11:5–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahlers MO, Morig G, Blunck U, Hajto J, Probster L, Frankenberger R (2009) Guidelines for the preparation of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays and partial crowns. Int J Comput Dent 12:309–325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Federlin M, Krifka S, Herpich M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2007) Partial ceramic crowns: influence of ceramic thickness, preparation design and luting material on fracture resistance and marginal integrity in vitro. Oper Dent 32:251–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Federlin M, Schmidt S, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2004) Partial ceramic crowns: influence of preparation design and luting material on internal adaption. Oper Dent 29:560–570

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Federlin M, Sipos C, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2005) Partial ceramic crowns. Influence of preparation design and luting material on margin integrity—a scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Investig 9:8–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tobi H, Kreulen CM, Gruythuysen RJ, van Amerongen WE (1998) The analysis of restoration survival data in split-mouth designs. J Dent 26:293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dent Mater 25:960–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Paula EA, Tay LY, Kose C, Mena-Serrano A, Reis A, Perdigao J, Loguercio AD (2015) Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in cervical lesions: 12-month results. Int J Esthet Dent 10:122–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2010) Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 12:535–540

    Google Scholar 

  31. Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2014) Effect of selective enamel etching on clinical performance of CAD/CAM partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement. Clin Oral Investig 18:1975–1984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peumans M, Voet M, De MJ, Van LK, Van EA, Van MB (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 17:739–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baader K, Hiller K-A, Buchalla W, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2016) Self-adhesive luting of partial ceramic crowns: selective enamel etching leads to higher survival after 6.5 years in vivo. J Adhes Dent 18(1):69–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goracci C, Cury AH, Cantoro A, Papacchini F, Tay FR, Ferrari M (2006) Microtensile bond strength and interfacial properties of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements used to lute composite onlays under different seating forces. J Adhes Dent 8:327–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. Sarah Wiesbauer, dentist and assistant professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Regensburg Dental School, for her support in the conduction of the clinical part of the study and for her advice in preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental School, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93042, Regensburg, Germany

    Vanessa Vogl, Karl-Anton Hiller, Wolfgang Buchalla, Marianne Federlin & Gottfried Schmalz

  2. Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry, University School of Dental Medicine Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland

    Gottfried Schmalz

Authors
  1. Vanessa Vogl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl-Anton Hiller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Buchalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marianne Federlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gottfried Schmalz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Vogl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was in part sponsored by 3MESPE, Seefeld, Germany. The study is registered with the German Registrar of Clinical Studies (DRKS, Freiburg) under the reference DRKS identification number DRKS00003059.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the University of Regensburg (IRB 11-101-0065) in accordance with the Declarations of Helsinki (1975) and Tokyo (1983) and registered with the German Registrar for Clinical Studies (DRKS 00003059).

Informed consent

All patients were required to give written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.

Additional information

M. Federlin and G. Schmalz contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vogl, V., Hiller, KA., Buchalla, W. et al. Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical split-mouth evaluation of partial ceramic crowns luted with a new, universal adhesive system/resin cement: results after 18 months. Clin Oral Invest 20, 2481–2492 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1779-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1779-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation