Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of a self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE), used for cementation of ceramic inlays. In addition, the influence of selectively acid-etching enamel prior to luting on the clinical performance of the restorations was assessed.
Methods
Sixty-two IPS Empress 2 inlays/onlays were placed in 31 patients by two experienced clinicians. The restorations were luted with RelyX Unicem with (=experimental group: E) or without (=control group: NE) prior enamel etching with phosphoric acid. At baseline, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 4 years after placement, the restorations were assessed by two calibrated investigators using modified USPHS criteria. Ten selected samples of each group were investigated under SEM regarding morphological changes at the cement–inlay interface.
Results
The recall rate at 4 years was 97 %. Two restorations (1 E, 1 NE) were lost, and one (E) had to be replaced due to inlay and tooth fracture resulting in a survival rate of 95 %. No significant differences between the experimental and control group were noticed regarding all criteria (McNemar, p < 0.05). An obvious deterioration in marginal integrity was observed after 4 years as only 5 % (E = 7 %; NE = 3 %) of the restorations exhibited an excellent marginal adaptation. In 90 % of the restorations small, still clinically acceptable marginal deficiencies were observed. SEM of the luting gap showed an increased wear of the RelyX Unicem cement over the 4-year period.
Conclusions
The self-adhesive luting cement RelyX Unicem can be recommended for bonding of ceramic inlays/onlays. Additional selective enamel etching does not improve the clinical performance of the restorations within the 4-year period.
Clinical relevance
The self-adhesive resin composite RelyX Unicem showed acceptable clinical performance after 4 years of clinical service.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In the last decade, simplification of adhesive procedures has gained substantial importance. More specifically, for adhesive luting of inlays/onlays self-adhesive luting cements has been introduced. An important advantage of these luting cements is that they do not require pretreatment of the tooth surface, thereby reducing the technique sensitivity of the luting procedure. Self-adhesive luting resin cements are generally composed of phosphoric acid and/or carboxylic acid methacrylate monomers. These monomers are thought to bond chemically to tooth apatite and to the superficial oxides of the restoration. The resin cements are usually dual-cured resins that can be light-activated and can self-cure as well [1]. The different self-adhesive resin cements available on the dental market cannot be considered a homogenous group as they display disparate physico-chemical, physico-mechanical, and adhesive properties [2–7]. RelyX Unicem, the first introduced self-adhesive luting composite on the dental market, is the most thoroughly investigated self-adhesive cement in the current literature. Several conclusions can be drawn from in vitro studies. First, the physico-mechanical properties of Unicem are in the range of those of conventional resin cements [3, 7–9]. Second, the dentin bonding efficiency in terms of bond strength, marginal adaptation, and microleakage is comparable to that of multi-step luting composites [4, 10–16], although the interaction of RelyX Unicem with dentin is superficial without the formation of a hybrid layer [5, 10, 17]. Some in vitro studies, however, showed less favorable results regarding dentin bonding efficiency [5, 18–23]. Regarding enamel bonding performance, all in vitro studies showed that RelyX Unicem cannot compete with cements that use etch-and-rinse adhesives [4, 10, 11, 24, 25]. However, a significant increase in bond strength and a better marginal adaptation can be obtained after etching the enamel with phosphoric acid [10, 11, 25, 26] and the use of a bonding agent [24, 27].
Regarding the clinical behavior of RelyX Unicem when it is used for cementation of inlays/onlays/partial crowns, only a few short-term (1–2 years) clinical trials are available in the literature, demonstrating that this cement shows good short-term clinical performance [28–32]. To date, no information is available from medium-term to long-term clinical trials. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of RelyX Unicem used for cementation of ceramic inlays/onlays in a randomized controlled clinical trial. In addition, the influence of selective acid etching of enamel prior to luting on the clinical performance of the restored teeth was assessed. The hypothesis tested was that selective etching of enamel prior to luting has no influence on the clinical performance of the restorations.
Materials and methods
Clinical procedure
All patients were required to give written informed consent. The study was approved by the Commission for Medical Ethics of the Catholic University of Leuven. The patients agreed to a recall program of 4 years consisting of five appointments (baseline, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 4 years). Thirty-one healthy adult patients (22 female/9 male; 18–59 years), in need of two esthetic Class II posterior restorations, were selected for this study. They met the following criteria: vital teeth, absence of pain in the tooth to be restored, absence of any active and pulpal disease, no further restorations planned in other posterior teeth, possible application of rubberdam, inlay or onlay with maximum one cusp covered, high level of oral hygiene, contralateral side restorations (split mouth design).
These 31 patients received 62 IPS-Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent; Schaan, Liechtenstein) inlays/onlays. In each patient, one restoration was luted with RelyX Unicem according to the instructions of the manufacturer (control group: non-etch; NE). In the tooth on the contra-lateral side, the enamel cavity margins were etched with 35 % phosphoric acid prior to cementation of the restoration with RelyX Unicem (experimental group: Etch; E).
Treatments were carried out by two experienced operators in the School of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven. Forty-two inlays were MO/DO (E = 22; NE = 22), 12 MOD (E = 4; NE = 6), and 8 onlays (E = 5; NE = 3). The restorations were cemented in 32 premolars and 30 molars. Reasons for restoration were caries (n = 10) and replacements (n = 52).
Initial situations were recorded by X-rays. Five teeth required caries profunda treatment. In 4 cavities, the margin was located below the cemento-enamel junction and in 25 cavity preparations 0.5 mm of enamel was left at the proximo-cervical margin.
The preparations of the cavities were performed slightly divergently without beveling of the margins with 80-μm diamond burs and finished with 25-μm finishing diamonds (Inlay Preparation Set 4263, Komet; Lemgo, Germany). Minimum depth of the cavities was 1.5 mm with rounded occluso-axial angles. Minimum width at the isthmus was 2 mm. If an onlay preparation was made, the restoration was approximately 1.5 mm thick under the cusp tip and had at least a 1 mm wide or horizontally ending preparation. During cavity preparation, undercuts were avoided if possible. Small undercuts were blocked out with a resin-modified glass ionomer (Photac Fil, 3M ESPE; Seefeld, Germany). However, more than 50 % of the prepared tooth surface was required to consist of dentin.
Full-arch impressions were taken with high-viscosity addition-silicon impression material (Dimension Penta, 3M ESPE) and low-viscosity, syringeable material was used (Dimension Garant, 3M ESPE) to record preparation details.
For all preparations, provisional restorations were made with Pro-Temp (3M ESPE) and cemented with an eugenol-free temporary luting cement (RelyX Temp NE, 3M ESPE). One dental ceramist produced all the inlays and onlays with IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent), according to manufacturer’s instructions within 1 or 2 weeks after impression taking.
To ease the placement of the inlays/onlays, isolation took place with rubberdam. This also prevented that phosphoric acid gel came into contact with the gingiva while etching the cervical enamel margins in the Etch group. After isolation, the intraoral fit of the restoration was evaluated. The approximal contacts were measured using dental floss and standardized metal blades. The thickness of these blades varied from 0.05 to 0.25 mm (0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25 mm). Prior to insertion, the thickness of the inlays and onlays (deepest fissure, isthmus, cusp) was recorded using a pair of tactile compasses, with an accuracy of 0.01 mm (ODI D calliper gauge, Kroeplin; Schluechtern, Germany).
The internal surface of the inlays was etched with 4.5 % hydrofluoric acid (4.5 %; IPS Ceramic etching gel, Ivoclar Vivadent, 60 s), rinsed for 60 s, and neutralized (IPS Neutralizer, Ivoclar Vivadent). After application of the silane coupling agent (Monobond S, Ivoclar Vivadent), the solvent was evaporated with compressed air.
Allocation to the cavity-pretreatment group with (experimental group; Etch) or without enamel etching (control group; Non-etch) occurred strictly at random just before cementation [28].
In the experimental group, the enamel margins were etched with 35 % phosphoric acid gel (Ultra-Etch, Ultradent Products; Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 1 mm outside the cavity, 1.5 mm inside the cavity at the occlusal and proximal part of the cavity) for 15 s, followed by thorough rinsing and drying. Next, the RelyX Unicem Maxicapsule (3M ESPE) was mixed in the Rotomix (3M ESPE) for 10 s and the cavity was filled with cement. The restoration was seated and held in place under light finger pressure. After tack curing with the polymerization light for 2–3 s, excess cement was removed and each surface was light-cured for 20 s. The curing light used was Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE) with an intensity of 1,250 mW/cm2.
After light-curing and examination of the luting areas for defects, the rubberdam was removed. Centric and eccentric occlusal contacts were adjusted with diamond finishing burs (Esthetic Trimming Set, Komet) prior to Soflex disks (3M ESPE; St Paul, MN, USA). Overhangs were removed and polished in the same way, proximally with interdental diamond strips (GC; Tokyo, Japan) and interdental polishing strips (GC Epitex strips; GC). Final polishing was conducted using felt disks (Dia-Finish E Filzscheiben, Renfert; Hilzingen, Germany) with polishing gel (Brinell, Renfert).
At baseline (1 month after placement) and after 6 months and 1, 2, and 4 years, all available restorations were assessed according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two independent investigators using mirrors, probes, dental tape, bitewing radiographs, and intraoral photographs [28]. The scores for each parameter were divided into clinically acceptable scores alpha 1 (excellent), alpha 2 (good), and bravo (sufficient) and clinically unacceptable scores charlie and delta. If an alpha 2 score is present, correction is still posssible without damaging the tooth or restoration. This is not the case when the restoration has a bravo score. With a charlie score, repair of the restoration is still possible. With a delta score, replacement of the restoration is needed. The two evaluators were different from the two clinicians who had placed the restorations. Both examiners were used to assess adhesive restoration in clinical trials for more than 20 years. In case of disagreement, a consensus was reached by discussion.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis compared the ratings of marginal integrity, inlay integrity, tooth integrity, sensitivity, complications, and X-ray examination between the experimental group and the control group on a pair-wise basis using the McNemar test at a significance level of 5 % (p > 0.05). Survival statistics were determined using the Kaplan–Meier algorithm and the difference between the two groups was determined with the Log Rank test (p > 0.05).
Scanning electron microscopic analysis
Impressions of the restorations were taken at baseline, 1 year, and 4 years (Dimension Penta, 3M ESPE) and epoxy replicas were manufactured (Epofix Resin, Struers, Ballerup, Denmark). Twenty casts of 10 randomly selected patients were prepared for SEM evaluation to illustrate morphological changes at the cement–inlay interface over time. The replicas were then mounted on aluminium stubs, sputter-coated with gold, and examined under SEM at different magnifications (XL30 FEG SEM, Philips). SEM examination was performed by a third evaluator who was blinded to the restorative procedures.
Results
The results of the baseline, 1, 2, and 4-year evaluation are presented in Table 1. Figures 1 and 2 show clinical photographs of two Empress 2 inlays (E, NE) in the same patient at baseline, 1 year and 4 years. SEM photographs of the same restorations at the same recalls are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
One patient (who received 2 restorations) did not attend the 2 and 4-year recall examinations (drop-out rate: 3 %) as she had moved to another place. After 4 years of clinical service, 2 restorations of the NE group in 2 different patients had to be replaced due to loss of retention, and 1 restoration of the E group in another patient showed a clinically unacceptable tooth and inlay fracture. Fifty-seven inlays were in good condition (survival rate computed with the Kaplan–Meier algorithm, 95 %). The survival rate was 97 % for the E group and 93 % for the NE group. There was no significant difference between both groups (Log Rank test; p = 0.5).
Over the whole observation period, the restorations of the E and NE group showed no statistically significant differences regarding marginal integrity, inlay integrity, tooth integrity, sensitivity, complications, and radiographic assessment (McNemar; p > 0.05).
Obvious marginal deterioration was observed during the 4-year study period. The percentage of restorations with an excellent marginal adaptation (alpha 1) decreased from 70.7 % at BL (E = 75 %; NE = 66.7 %) to 5 % after 4 years (E = 6.7 %; NE = 3.3 %). Unacceptable scores (1 charlie and 2 delta scores) were noted for the 3 failed restorations described above. All other restorations showed a clinically acceptable marginal adaptation: an alpha 2 (E = 76.7 %; NE = 66.7 %) or a bravo score (E = 13.3 %; NE = 23.3 %).
Regarding inlay integrity, 81.6 % of the restorations were intact at the 4-year recall (E = 83.4 %; NE = 80 %). Only one restoration of the etch group (1.7 %) showed an unacceptable porcelain fracture in combination with a cusp fracture. About 18 % of the restorations (n = 9) showed a clinically acceptable fracture of the porcelain (alpha 2 score or fracture <100 μm—E = 3.3 %; NE = 6.7 %; bravo score or fracture >100 μm—E = 10 %; NE = 10 %). Seven of the 9 fractures presented as half-moon fractures at the marginal ridge. Five of these fractures were already present at the 2-year recall.
The percentage of restored teeth with complete tooth integrity or an alpha 1 score at 4 years (E = 76.7 %; NE = 86.7 %) was approximately the same as that at baseline (E = 78.1 %; NE = 83.3 %). All alpha 2 scores (E = 20 %; NE = 10 %; n = 9) were observed as unprobable hairline cracks. Six of the 9 crack lines were not caused by the cementation procedure, as they were already present before cavity preparation.
Sensitivity, which already rarely occurred at baseline, was not present at the next recalls. One patient complained that her restored first upper premolar (NE group) was still sensitive during biting and flossing. This complication was also present at the 2-year recall, but was less pronounced at the 4-year recall.
During radiographic examination at the 4-year recall, wearing out of the luting composite was also recorded at proximo-cervical margins. The percentage of restorations with a harmonious transition (alpha 1 score—baseline, 92 %; 4 years, 85 %) or slight cement excess (alpha 2 score—baseline, 8 %; 4 years, 3.3 %) decreased, while the percentage of restorations with a small positive or negative step (<100 μm) at the cervical margin increased slightly (alpha 2 score—baseline, 0 %; 4 years, 8.3 %).
No esthetic failures, such as clinically unacceptable surface roughness and color mismatch, were present at the 4-year recall. For both parameters, a decrease in the percentage of restorations with an alpha 1 score was noticed (surface roughness, 61.7 %; color match, 53.3 %), and an increase in alpha 2 scores (surface roughness, 35 %; color match, 41.7 %).
Average ceramic dimensions measured prior to insertion were 1.9 mm below the deepest fissure, 3.3 mm bucco-lingually at the isthmus, and 3.5 mm below reconstructed onlay cusps. SEM evaluation showed distinct changes at the luting gap with time, namely wearing out of the luting composite (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). This was observed both on the occlusal contact areas and on the contact-free areas. The wear seems to be more pronounced in regions where the luting space was wider (Fig. 4). Sometimes, air bubbles were noticed in the luting composite, which can contribute to increased wear (Fig. 4). In some restorations (14.5 %), a marginal gap was already present at baseline (Fig. 6). In some restorations, minor fractures (not visible during clinical evaluation) of the porcelain margin were observed after 4 years of clinical functioning (Fig. 7).
Discussion
Due to the less favorable bonding efficiency of RelyX Unicem to enamel, some authors have questioned if this self-adhesive luting cement can be used for cementation of restorations with preparation margins located almost completely in enamel, e.g. inlays/onlays/partial crowns [1, 33]. The results of this study confirm that RelyX Unicem is indicated for cementation of these restorations, as the survival rate after 4 years was 95 %. In addition, the survival rate is quite similar compared to the 4-year survival rate of inlays/onlays cemented with a conventional etch-and-rinse luting composite [34–40], which is considered as the golden standard of luting cements for inlays/onlays. In the control group (NE) 2 restorations failed due to debonding, 1 at 6 months and the other at 12 months. The failure rate in the NE group (7 %) was not significantly different from the E group, where enamel was selectively etched with phosphoric acid prior to cementation (3 %; Log Rank test p = 0.5). In this latter group one restored tooth failed at the 4-year recall due to the occurrence of a cusp fracture in combination with a porcelain fracture. The porcelain fracture was already observed after 3 years and was repaired with composite. At that moment, a visible crack line was noticed on the adjacent cusp which fractured 1 year later. Bruxism was considered to be associated with the fracture [41].
Only two 2-year clinical trials are available in the literature evaluating the clinical performance of RelyX Unicem used for cementation of ceramic inlays/onlays/partial crowns. In the study of Taschner et al. [29], no failures were observed in the group where inlays/onlays were cemented with RelyX Unicem compared to 1 fracture in the Syntac/Variolink (Ivoclar Vivadent) group. In the study of Schenke et al. [32] with a similar study design as that of the present study, 3 failures were recorded in the RelyX Unicem group (2 debondings and 1 inlay fracture) and 1 unacceptable inlay fracture in the group where RelyX Unicem was used with prior selective etching of enamel. Similarly as in the present study, additional selective enamel etching did not considerably improve the clinical performance of restorations.
Regarding the parameters of marginal integrity, tooth integrity, inlay integrity, post-operative sensitivity, and radiographic examination, no significant difference was noticed between both groups. This is in line with the hypothesis of the study.
The parameter that changed most clearly after 4 years was marginal integrity. The percentage of restorations with a harmonious outline decreased considerably from 70.7 % at BL to 5 % at the 4-year recall. However, marginal integrity remained clinically acceptable in all restorations except for the 3 failures. Similarly, all clinical investigations of ceramic inlays/onlays/partial crowns show appreciable changes in the marginal areas of the restorations after 4 years of clinical functioning [34–39]. In the different clinical trials at University of Erlangen [29, 34, 35, 38, 39], where the same evaluation system was used as that of the present study, the percentage of restorations with an alpha 1 score at baseline was much lower than in our study. An explanation for this low percentage of alpha 1 scores was the presence of a slight excess of luting composite, which corresponds to an alpha 2 score. Due to wear or degradation of the luting composite with time, this score changed into alpha 1 and finally into marginal ditching (alpha 2 or bravo score). In the present study, excess of cement was observed in only a limited number of restorations (12.9 %) at baseline. Some restorations (14.5 %) even showed a slight marginal gap (<150 μm) at the baseline evaluation (Fig. 6). This could have been caused by the cementation method, e.g. by the removal of excess luting composite after 2–3 s of tack curing.
In this clinical trial, the cervical margins of only four restorations were located below the cemento-enamel junction, which means that almost all preparation margins ended in enamel. In an in vitro study of Frankenberger et al. [25], the marginal enamel quality of ceramic inlays after thermomechanical loading was significantly better when an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Syntac/Variolink) was used compared to RelyX Unicem. At the dentin side, no difference was noted in marginal quality. Marginal adaptation of the ceramic inlays/onlays at the enamel side improved significantly when the enamel was selectively etched with phosphoric acid prior to cementation with RelyX Unicem. This observation, however, was not clinically visible after 4 years of clinical functioning. There might be a small indication in this clinical trial that the marginal integrity was slightly superior in the E group, as a higher percentage of bravo scores was noted in the NE group compared to the E group (23 % vs. 13 %). In addition, marginal discoloration (included in the criterion of marginal integrity) occurred more frequently in the NE group than in the E group (13.3 % vs. 6.7 %). Nevertheless, these differences were not statistically significant. The same observation has been reported in a 2-year clinical trial of Schenke et al. [32] with similar study set-up.
SEM analysis of replicas provided a clearer view of the degradation process. In both groups an increasing wear of the luting composite was noticed from baseline to 4 years. The wear was more pronounced when the luting gap was wider. This correlation between depth and width of the luting gap was also observed in vitro [42] and in other clinical trials [43–45]. Regarding wear resistance of RelyX Unicem, an in vitro study of Belli et al. [46] found that the wear resistance of RelyX Unicem to toothbrush abrasion was similar to conventional resin cements and flowable composites. However, with the ACTA abrasive test under higher loads, RelyX Unicem wore more rapidly when compared to conventional resin cements and flowable composites. Although increased wear was clearly observed after 4 years of clinical functioning, this increased wear and marginal deterioration had no negative influence on the clinical functioning of the restorations. Longer-term evaluation should demonstrate if this marginal deterioration will become detrimental for the clinical performance of the restorations.
Regarding inlay integrity, only one restoration showed a clinically unacceptable porcelain fracture in combination with a cusp fracture. In the present clinical trial lithium disilicate ceramic Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent) was used, which has enhanced mechanical properties compared to leucite reinforced ceramic and feldspatic ceramic [47, 48]. In three clinical trials evaluating Empress 2 inlays/onlays/partial crowns, no unacceptable fractures occurred after 2–3 years [37, 49, 50]. Nevertheless, a very low percentage of unacceptable fractures was also recorded in medium-term clinical trials where inlays/onlays were fabricated from leucite reinforced ceramic [34, 35, 37, 51, 52] or feldspatic ceramic [36, 53, 54]. The total number of fractures (19 %; n = 10) in this study was also comparable to other 4-year studies with leucite-reinforced ceramic IPS Empress inlays/onlays using the same modified USPHS criteria as in the present study [34, 35]. The clinically acceptable chip fractures that occurred at the marginal ridge of 7 restorations were probably caused by microcracks created by grinding during correction of occlusion and articulation. Indeed, the clinical pictures at baseline showed a rougher surface in this area. An accurate polish of occlusally adjusted areas should involve considerable attention to prevent this problem, as was emphasized in the clinical trials carried out at the University of Erlangen [35, 38, 55, 56]. In a 12-year clinical trial, Frankenberger et al. [57] observed that inlay fractures occurred in two phases. In a first phase, fatigue fractures induced by adjustments with rotary instruments occurred between 3 and 4 years of clinical service. A second phase of fractures occurred after 10 years, due to the fact that the antagonistic enamel was significantly abraded more than the ceramic resulting in positive ceramic steps [45]. If these step formations are not adjusted, initial cracks are initiated at exactly these points of unsupported ceramic. In the present clinical trial, some restorations showed ditching of the porcelain at the margins due to wearing out of the luting composite over the 4-year study period. However, this porcelain ditching was only observed during SEM evaluation (Fig. 7). It is advisable to carefully monitor the ceramic-enamel interface with time to prevent the occurrence of fractures [56, 57].
Postoperative sensitivity did not occur at the 4-year recall. In fact, there was only one restored tooth with increased sensitivity at baseline (NE), and one tooth that was slightly sensitive during flossing at the 4-year recall (NE). Similarly, Taschner et al. [29] recorded no postoperative sensitivity at teeth restored with inlays/onlays cemented with RelyX Unicem and Syntac/Variolink in a 2-year clinical trial. However, in the clinical trial of Schenke et al. [31, 32] evaluating partial ceramic crowns cemented with RelyX Unicem with and without selective enamel etching, a high percentage of postoperative sensitivity was recorded at baseline (NE = 13.8 %; E = 27.6 %). At the 2-year recall, postoperative sensitivity occurred less frequently (NE = 10.7 %; E = 6.9 %). Saad et al. [58] investigated post-cementation sensitivity associated with RelyX Unicem used with fixed partial dentures. In this clinical trial postoperative sensitivity with an etch-and-rinse luting cement was significantly higher than that associated with RelyX Unicem at all test intervals (24 h and 2, 6, and 12 weeks after cementation). Possible explanations for the very low frequency of postoperative sensitivity in these clinical trials are: (1) low shrinkage strain and shrinkage stress recorded in vitro for RelyX Unicem [59]. (2) RelyX Unicem’s unique pH profile characterized by a more rapid rise in pH to neutrality [2, 3]. Together with the low solubility of the cement [60], this may prevent hydrolysis and release of components for diffusion through the dentinal tubules. (3) RelyX Unicem’s reaction with the smear layer, which takes the form of alteration rather than total removal [10, 17]. This helps in preventing any migration of cement components towards the pulp, and hence, reduces the risk of pulpal reaction with subsequent post-cementation hypersensitivity as was demonstrated in vitro [61, 62].
Finally, the esthetic quality of the restorations decreased slightly during the 4-year study period. This was recorded as an increase in alpha 2 scores in color match (41.7 %) and surface roughness (35 %). Deterioration of the surface could be the result of occlusal contact wear, extrinsic mechanical wear, and chemical degradation of the glazing material and was also observed in other clinical trials evaluating IPS Empress [37, 51, 52] and Vita Mark II [63] partial coverage restorations. This rougher surface may lead to a slight color mismatch. Indeed, the percentage of restorations with a perfect color match decreased from 80.65 % at BL to 53.3 % at 4 years. The darkening of the natural tooth could also have been contributed to this clinically acceptable color mismatch [64]. The increase of surface roughness as well as the slight color deviation and alteration over time were not deemed to be a significant clinical problem in this investigation and were only evaluated by the examiners. The same observation has also been reported in clinical trials evaluating IPS Empress I, II, Procad, and CEREC/Vita Mark II restorations [52, 63–65].
Conclusion
In summary, the self-adhesive luting cement RelyX Unicem can be recommended for bonding of ceramic inlays. A clinically acceptable marginal deterioration was noticed in almost all restorations after 4 years of clinical functioning. Finally, selective etching of enamel did not improve the clinical performance of the restorations within the 4-year study period.
References
Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M (2008) Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 10:251–258
Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T (2007) Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J 26:906–914
Saskalauskaite E, Tam LE, McComb D (2008) Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and pH profile of self-etch resin luting cements. J Prosthodont 17:262–268
Behr M, Hansmann M, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2009) Marginal adaptation of three self-adhesive resin cements vs. a well-tried adhesive luting agent. Clin Oral Invest 13:459–464
Cantoro A, Goracci C, Carvalho CA, Coniglio I, Ferrari M (2009) Bonding potential of self-adhesive luting agents used at different temperatures to lute composite inlays. J Dent 37:454–461
Flury S, Lussi A, Peutzfeldt A, Zimmerli B (2010) Push-out bond strength of CAD/CAM-ceramic luted to dentin with self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 26:855–863
Ilie N, Simon A (2012) Effect of curing mode on the micro-tensile properties of dual-cured self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Invest 16:505–512
Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC (2003) Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent 28:535–542
Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LV, User A, Vallittu PK (2004) A study of the physical and chemical properties of four resin composite luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 17:357–63
De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2004) Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 20:963–971
Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, Maida T, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2007) Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 23:71–80
D’Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, D’Amario M, Zazzeroni S, Ciampoli C, Caputi S (2009) The influence of luting systems on the microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resin-based composite and ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 34:328–336
Makishi P, Shimada Y, Sadr A, Wei S, Ichinose S, Tagami J (2010) Nanoleakage expression and microshear bond strength in the resin cement/dentin interface. J Adhes Dent 12:393–401
Sarr M, Mine A, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Kane AW, Vreven J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K (2010) Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin. Clin Oral Invest 14:569–577
Schenke F, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2008) Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with different luting techniques and materials. Oper Dent 33:516–525
Manso AGM, Gonzalez-Lopez S, Carmona-BolanosV MPFBTD, Felix SA, Carvalho PA (2011) Reginal bond strength to lateral walls in Class I and II ceramic inlays luted with four resin cements and glass-ionomer luting agent. J Adhes Dent 13:455–65
Monticelli F, Osorio R, Mazzitelli C, Ferrari M, Toledano M (2008) Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res 87:974–979
Holderegger C, Sailer I, Schumacher C, Schläpfer R, Hämmerle C, Fisher J (2008) Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 24:944–950
Trajtenberg CP, Caram SJ, Kiat-amnuay S (2008) Microleakage of all-ceramic crowns using self-etching resin luting agents. Oper Dent 33:392–399
Hiraishia N, Yiua CKY, Kinga NM, Tay FR (2009) Effect of pulpal pressure on the microtensile bond strength of luting resin cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 25:58–66
Viotto RG, Kasaz A, Pena CE, Alexandre RS, Arrais CA, Reis AF (2009) Microtensile bond strength of new self-adhesive luting agents and conventional multistep systems. J Prosthet Dent 102:306–312
Ghazy M, El-Mowafy A, Roperto R (2010) Microleakage of porcelain and composite machined crowns cemented with self-adhesive or conventional resin cement. J Prosthodont 19:523–530
Lührs AK, Guhr S, Günay H, Geurtsen W (2010) Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resins compared to resin cements with etch and rinse adhesives to enamel and dentin in vitro. Clin Oral Invest 14:193–199
Benetii P, Boas Fernandes Junior VV, Gomes Torres CR, Pagani C (2011) Bonding efficacy of new-self-etching, self-adhesive dual-curing resin cements to dental enamel. J Adhes Dent 13:231–234
Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Appelt A, Lohbauer U, Naumannd M, Roggendorf M (2011) Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Dent Mater 27:892–898
Duarte S, Botta AC, Meire M, Sadan A (2008) Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel. J Prosthet Dent 100:203–210
Lin J, Shinya A, Gomi H, Shinya A (2010) Bonding of self-adhesive resin cements to enamel using different surface treatments and etching pattern evaluations. Dent Mater J 29:425–432
Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2010) Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 12:151–161
Taschner M, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Pelka M, Breschi L, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2012) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study. Dent Mater 28:535–540
Taschner M, Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Rosenbusch S, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) IPS Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year. Am J Dent 22:55–59
Schenke F, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Moder D, Schmalz G (2010) Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. 1-year results. Am J Dent 23:240–246
Schenke F, Federlijn M, Hiller KA, Moder D, Schmalz G (2012) Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years. Clin Oral Invest 16:451–461
Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G (2005) Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clin Oral Invest 9:161–167
Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A (1999) IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years- a clinical study. J Dent 27:325–331
Krämer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2006) Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesive after 4 years. Dent Mater 22:13–21
Zimmer S, Göblich O, Rüttermann S, Lang H, Raab WHM, Barthel CR (2008) Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study. Oper Dent 33:484–487
Guess P, Strub JR, Steinhart N, Wolkewitz M, Stappert CFJ (2009) All-ceramic partial coverage restorations—midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study. J Dent 37:627–637
Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2009) Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dent Mater 25:960–968
Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Frankenberger R (2009) Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite. J Dent 37:813–819
Lange RT, Pfeiffer P (2009) Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent 34:263–272
van Dijken JWV, Hasselrotb L (2010) A prospective15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 26:929–939
Kawai K, Isenberg BP, Leinfelder KF (1994) Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. Quintessence Int 25:53–58
Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2000) Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 25:473–481
Hayashi M, Tsubakimoto Y, Takeshige F, Ebisu S (2004) Analysis of longitudinal marginal deterioration of ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 29:386–391
Krämer N, Kunzelmann KH, Taschner M, Mehl A, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2006) Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res 85:1097–1100
Belli R, Pelka M, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2009) In vitro wear gap formation of self-adhesive resin cements: A CLSM evaluation. J Dent 37:984–993
Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV (2003) Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent Res 31:181–188
Della Bona A, Mecholsky JJ, Anusavice KJ (2004) Fracture behavior of lithia-disilicate and leucite-based ceramics. Dent Mater 20:956–962
Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Bertelli E, Davidson B, Ferrari M (2006) A clinical trial of Empress II porcelain inlays luted to vital teeth with a dual-curing adhesive system and a self-curing resin cement. J Adhes Dent 8:427–431
Tagtekin DA, Özyöney G, Yanikoglu F (2009) Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays. Oper Dent 34:369–378
van Dijken JWV, Hasselrot L, Örmin A, Olofsson AL (2001) Restorations with extensive dentin/enamel-bonded ceramic coverage. A 5-year follow-up. Eur J Oral Sci 109:222–229
Naeselius K, Arnelund CF, Molin MK (2008) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: a 4-year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 21:40–44
Reich SM, Wichmann M, Rinne H, Shortall A (2004) Clinical performance of large, all ceramic CAD/CAM generated restorations after three years. J Am Dent Assoc 135:605–612
Federlin M, Wagner J, Manner T, Hiller KA, Schmalz G (2007) Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns. Clin Oral Invest 11:345–352
Krämer N, Frankenberger R (2005) Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 21:262–271
Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2008) Totally bonded ceramic inalys and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 10:307–314
Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N (2008) Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 10:393–398
El-Din SD, Atta O, El-Mowafy O (2010) The postoperative sensitivity of fixed partial dentures cemented with self-adhesive resin cements: a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 141:1459–1466
Spinell T, Schedle A, Watts DC (2009) Polymerization shrinkage kinetics of dimethacrylate resin cements. Dent Mater 25:1058–1066
Vochrari AD, Eliades G, Hellwig E, Wrbas KT (2010) Water sorption and solubility of four self-etching self-adhesive resin luting agents. J Adhes Dent 12:39–43
De Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Randall RC (2006) Human pulpal response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mater 10:954–962
Schmid-Schwap M, Franz A, König F, Bristela M, Lucas T, Piehslinger E, Watts DC, Schedle A (2009) Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. Dent Mater 25:360–368
Bindl A, Mormann WH (2003) Clinical SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111:163–169
Fasbinder DJ (2006) Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 137:22S–31S
Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2000) A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlays systems. Int J Prosthodont 13:194–200
Acknowledgements
The authors thank 3M ESPE for supporting this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peumans, M., Voet, M., De Munck, J. et al. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Invest 17, 739–750 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0762-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0762-9