A Prospective Clinical Study of Ceromer Inlays: Results up to 53 Months

International Journal of Prosthodontics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 17-23

  Kükrer, Derya ^a   Gemalmaz, Deniz ^a   Kuybulu, Emre Orhon ^a   Bozkurt, Funda Öztürk ^a  

^a MARMARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRUXISM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTAL TECHNOLOGY; DETERIORATION; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; ENDODONTICS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOLAR TOOTH; PERFORMANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH DISEASE;

ADULT; BRUXISM; CERAMICS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; INLAYS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RESIN CEMENTS; ROOT CANAL THERAPY; SILICATE CEMENT; SURFACE PROPERTIES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0842269143     PISSN: 08932174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge K-LV. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. J Dent 1998;26: 311-317.
2. Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NHF. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite: 10-year report. J Dent 1999; 27:13-19.
3. Höglund-Åberg C, van Dijken JWV, 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.
4. Gemalmaz D, Özcan M, Alkumru HN. A clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays bonded with different luting agents. J Adhesive Dent 2001;3:273-283.
5. Isidor F, Brondum K. A clinical evaluation of porcelain inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:140-144.
6. Felden A, Schmalz C, Federlin M, Hiller KA. Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: Results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 1998; 2:161-167.
7. Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: Clinical behavior. Oper Dent 2000;25:459-465.
8. van Dijken JWV, Höglund-Åberg C, Olofsson A-L. Fired ceramic inlays: A 6-year follow up. J Dent 1998;26:219-225.
9. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2000;25:473-481.
10. Duke ES. The introduction of a new class of composite resin: Ceromers. Compendium 1999;20:246-247.
11. Miara P. Aesthetic guidelines for second-generation indirect inlay and onlay composite restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:423-431.
12. Douglas DR. Color stability of new-generation indirect resins for prosthodontic application. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:166-170.
13. Monaco C, Baldissara P, dall'Orologio GD, Scotti R. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:81-86.
14. Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, Bush PJ, Carter JM. A comparison of wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:386-395.
15. van Dijken JWV. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings: A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:357-367.
16. Kaplan AL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457-465.
17. Ödman P. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Cerana prefabricated ceramic inlays. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:79-82.
18. Molin KM, Karlsson SL. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:194-200.
19. Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: A 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:122-128.
20. Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years - A clinical study. J Dent 1999;27: 325-331.
21. Qualtrough AJE, Wilson NHF. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a porcelain inlay system. J Dent 1996;24:317-323.
22. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:289-296.
23. Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kunzelmann K-H, Hickel R. One-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:410-416.
24. van Dijken JWV. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:368-376.
25. van Dijken JWV. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: An 11 year follow-up. J Dent 2000;28:299-306.
26. Wassel RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: Three-year clinical results. Br Dent J 1995;179:343-349.
27. Wendt SL, Leinfelder KF. The clinical evaluation of heat treated composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:177-181.
28. Hannig M. Das randschlussverhalten von kompositinlays aus SR-lsosit. In-vivo resultate nach sieben jahren. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1996;51:595-597.
29. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A one-year clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102:186-192.
30. Friedl K-H, Hiller K-A, Schmalz G, Bey B. Clinical and quantitative margin analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years. Clin Oral Invest 1997;1:163-168.
31. Fradeani M, Aquilano A, Bassein L. Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:346-353.
32. Marquis PM, Hu X, Shortall AC. Two-body wear of dental composites under different loads. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:473-479.
33. Schmalz G, Federlin M, Reich E. Effect of dimension of luting space and luting composite on marginal adaptation of a Class II ceramic inlay. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:392-399.