ArticleClinical oral investigations2016
Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical performance of minimally invasive full-mouth rehabilitation using different materials and techniques for patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical performance of resin-matrix ceramic partial coverage restorations: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Long-term performance of ceramic in/-onlays vs. cast gold partial crowns - a retrospective clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Clinical comparison of marginal fit of ceramic inlays between digital and conventional impressions.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2024Article
- Influence of Novel Experimental Light-Cured Resin Cement on Microtensile Bond Strength.Polymers · 2022Article
- Influence of restorative material and cement on the stress distribution of endocrowns: 3D finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- One-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate versus resin composite CAD/CAM onlays.Odontology · 2021Article
- Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- [Research progress in pulpless posterior tooth restored with ceramic onlay].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2018Article
- MicroCT evaluation for CAD/CAM occlusal veneer fit using two materials and three cement space settings.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 12-year clinical performance of sintered (Duceram, Dentsply-Degussa, Dentsply International Inc., PA, USA)-D and pressable (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Leichtenstein)-IPS ceramic inlay and onlay restorations.
methodsEighty-six restorations were placed in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years by a single operator. The restorations were luted with dual-cured resin luting material (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Leichtenstein) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at the baseline, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 12 years using the modified USPHS criteria.
resultsAt the 12-year recall, 22 patients were evaluated (62.86 %), totalling 48 (55.81 %) restorations. Seven restorations were fractured (one from Duceram and six from IPS), eight restorations presented secondary caries (three from Duceram and five from IPS), nine restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed repair or replacement (two from Duceram and seven from IPS), and four IPS restorations presented pulp sensitivity.
conclusionChi-square and Mann-Whitney tests revealed that IPS Empress system showed the best results for color match and surface texture (p < 0.05) but a significant worse result for fracture (p = 0.05). Wilcoxon test showed significant differences in relation to color match, surface texture, marginal discoloration, and marginal integrity between the baseline and 12-year recall for both ceramic systems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This long-term clinical study observed that the main reasons for failure of ceramic restorations were related to fracture, recurrent caries, and decreased marginal integrity over time. Carefully monitoring of the ceramic-tooth interface may extend their clinical longevity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26662120What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.