A milled ceramic inlay/onlay system: A report from a series of cases

British Dental Journal

Volumn 185, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 283-286

  Shearer, A C ^a   Thordrup, M ^b   Horsted Bindslev P ^b   Wilson, N H F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY DENTAL HOSPITAL OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELAY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR TOOTH; TOOTH BRUSHING; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DENTAL POLISHING; DENTAL PORCELAIN; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; HUMANS; INLAYS; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR;

EID: 0032569338     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809793     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Eidenbenz S, Lehner C R, Scharer P. Copy milling ceramic inlays from resin analogs: a practicable approach with the Celay system. Int J Prosthodont 1994: 7; 134-142.
2. Kawai K, Hayashi M, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y. Marginal adaptability and fit of ceramic milled inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 1995: 126; 1414-1419.
3. McLaren E A, Sorensen J A. Fabrication of conservative ceramic restorations using copymilling technology. Quintessence Dent Techn 1994: 17; 19-25.
4. Siervo S, Pampalone A, Siervo P, Siervo R. Where is the gap? Machinable ceramic systems and conventional laboratory restorations at a glance. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 773-779.
5. Siervo S, Bandettini B, Siervo P, Falleni A, Siervo R. The Celay system: a comparison of the fit of direct and indirect fabrication techniques. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 434-439.
6. Sorensen J A, McLaren E, Avera S P. Marginal fidelity and microleakage of ceramic inlay systems. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 119.
7. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. A comparison of the accuracy in seating and gap formation for three inlay/onlay techniques. Oper Dent 1990; 15: 129-135.
8. Burke F J T, Watts D C, Wilson N H F, Wilson M A. Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Brit Dent J 1991; 170: 269-273.
9. Sjogren G, Bergman M, Mohn M, Bessing C A. Clinical examination of ceramic (Cerec) inlays. Acta Odontol Scand 1992: 50; 171-178.
10. Krejci I, Krejci D, Lutz F. Clinical evaluation of a new pressed glass ceramic inlay material over 1.5 years. Quintessence Int 1992: 23; 181-186.
11. Molin M, Karlsson S. A clinical evaluation of the Optec inlay system. Acta Odontol Scand 1992; 50: 227-233.
12. Hoglund Aberg C, van Dijken J W V, Olofsson A-L. Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement. Acta Odontol Scand 1994: 52; 140-149.
13. Christensen R, Christensen G, Vogl S, Bangerter V. 2-year clinical comparison of 6 inlay systems. J Dent Res 1991: 70: 561
14. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. A one-year clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays. Scand J Dent Res 1994; 102: 186-192.
15. Mormann W, Krejci I. Computer-designed inlays after 5 years in situ: clinical performance and scanning electron microscope evaluation. Quintessence Int 1992: 23; 109-115.
16. Isenberg B P, Essig M E, Leinfelder K F. Three-year clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM restorations. J Esthet Dent 1992; 4. 173-176.
17. Isidor F, Brondum K. A clinical evaluation of porcelain inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74: 140-144.