Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays

Journal of Dental Research

Volumn 85, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 1097-1100

  Kramer N ^a   Kunzelmann, K H ^b   Taschner, M ^c   Mehl, A ^b   Garcia Godoy, F ^d   Frankenberger, R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^d NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Antagonist; Clinical trial; Glass ceramics; Resin composites; Wear

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM SILICATE; IPS EMPRESS CERAMIC; IPS-EMPRESS CERAMIC; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; TETRIC; VARIOLINK;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; DENTAL SURGERY; ENAMEL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; LASER; MALE; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; SURFACE PROPERTY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH DISEASE; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; ALUMINUM SILICATES; BICUSPID; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL PORCELAIN; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; INLAYS; LASERS; MALE; MOLAR; REPLICA TECHNIQUES; RESIN CEMENTS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TOOTH ABRASION;

EID: 33845593591     PISSN: 00220345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/154405910608501206     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Åberg CH, van Dijken JW, Olofsson AL (1994). Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement. Acta Odontol Scand 52:140-149.
2. Burke EJ, Qualtrough AJ (1994). Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic? Br Dent J 176:53-60.
3. Clelland NL, Agarwala V, Knobloch LA, Seghi RR (2001). Wear of enamel opposing low-fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials. J Prosthodont 10:8-15.
4. El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF (2002). Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations - a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 68:233-237.
5. Fradeani M, Aquilano A, Bassein L (1997). Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years. J Prosthet Dent 78:346-353.
6. Fuzzi M, Rappelli G (1999). Ceramic inlays: clinical assessment and survival rate. J Adhes Dent 1:71-79.
7. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, et al. (1995). Clinical and semiquantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-colored inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent 23:329-338.
8. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (1998). 6-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 23:318-326.
9. Hayashi M, Wilson NH, Yeung CA, Worthington HV (2003). Systematic review of ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 7:8-19.
10. Hayashi M, Tsubakimoto Y, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2004). Quantitative measurement of marginal disintegration of ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 29:3-8.
11. Heymann HO, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr, Roberson TM (1996). The clinical performance of CAD-CAM-generated ceramic inlays: a four-year study. J Am Dent Assoc 127:1171-1181.
12. Isenberg BP, Essig ME, Leinfelder KF (1992). Three-year clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM restorations. J Esthet Dent 4:173-176.
13. Kawai K, Isenberg BP, Leinfelder KF (1994). Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. Quintessence Int 25:53-58.
14. Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2000). Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Oper Dent 25:466-472.
15. Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2005). Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 21:262-271.
16. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL (1993). Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 69:425-430.
17. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M (1994a). Wear of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: restorations, opposing cusps, and luting cements. Quintessence Int 25:199-207.
18. Krejci I, Reich T, Bucher W, Lutz F (1994b). [A new method for 3-dimensional wear measurement.] Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 104:160-169 [article in German].
19. Kunzelmann K-H (1996). Wear analysis and quantification of restorative materials in vitro and in vivo (PhD thesis). Munich, Germany: University of Munich.
20. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G (1989). Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68:1752-1754.
21. Mehl A, Gloger W, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (1997). A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res 76:1799-1807.
22. Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2000). A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 13:194-200.
23. Oh WS, DeLong R, Anusavice KJ (2002). Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 87:451-459.
24. Qualtrough AJ, Wilson NHF (1996). A 3-year clinical evaluation of a porcelain inlay system. J Dent 24:317-323.
25. Ramp MH, Suzuki S, Cox CF, Lacefield WR, Koth DL (1997). Evaluation of wear: enamel opposing three ceramic materials and a gold alloy. J Prosthet Dent 77:523-530.
26. Ratledge DK, Smith BG, Wilson RF (1994). The effect of restorative materials on the wear of human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 72:194-203.
27. Sjögren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW (2004). A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 17:241-246.
28. Yip KH, Smales RJ, Kaidonis JA (2004). Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont 17:350-356.