The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 136, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 1714-1723

  Fasbinder, Dennis J ^a   Dennison, Joseph B ^a   Heys, Donald R ^a   Lampe, Kathrin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

CAD CAM; Composite; Inlays; Porcelain

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144453862     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0116     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chairside computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 1989;20:329-39.
2. Mehl A, Hickel R. Current state of development and perspectives of machine-based production methods for dental restorations. Int J Comput Dent 1999;2:9-35.
3. Mormann WH. Chairside computer-generated ceramic restorations: the Cerec third generation improvements. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1992;4(7):9-16.
4. Fasbinder DJ. Restorative material options for CAD/CAM restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(10):911-22.
5. Posselt A, Kerschbaum T. Longevity of 2328 chairside CEREC inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent 2003;6(3):231-48.
6. Heymann HO, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD, Roberson TM. The clinical performance of CAD-CAM-generated ceramic inlays: a four-year study. JADA 1996;127(9):1171-81.
7. 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(2):122-8.
8. Sjögren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 5-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays (CEREC) cemented with a dual-cured or chemically cured resin composite luting agent. Acta Odontol Scand 1998;56:263-7.
9. Rusin RP. Properties and applications of a new composite block for CAD/CAM. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22(supplement 6):35-41.
10. Straffon LH, Dennison JB. Clinical evaluation comparing sealant and amalgam after 7 years: final report. JADA 1988;117:751-5.
11. Sjögren G, Bergman M, Molin M, Bessing C. A clinical examination of ceramic (CEREC) inlays. Acta Odontol Scand 1992;50(3):171-8
12. Fasbinder DJ, Lampe K, Dennison JB, Peters MC, Nematollahi K. Clinical performance of CAD/CIM generated ceramic onlays (abstract 2711). J Dent Res 1999;78(special issue):444.
13. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the CEREC CAD/CAM system. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108:239-46.
14. Berg NG, Derand T. A 5-year evaluation of ceramic inlays (CEREC). Swed Dent J 1997;21:121-7.
15. Martin N, Jedynakiewicz NM. Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 1999;15(1):54-61.
16. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:45-64.
17. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, et al. Clinical and semi-quantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent 1995;23(6):329-38.
18. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 2001;32:199-205.
19. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(3):194-200.
20. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays: an 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(2):71-9.
21. Zuellig-Singer R, Bryant RW. Three-year evaluation of computer-machined ceramic inlays: influence of luting agent. Quintessence Int 1998;29:573-82.