Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

SERAMIK INLEY VE ONLEY RESTORASYONLAR

CERAMIC INLAY AND ONLAY RESTORATIONS

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2007

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The use of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations has increased substantially in the past two decades. This trend can be attributed to the greater interest of patients and dentists in this esthetic and long-lasting material, and to the effectively bonding ability of full-ceramic restorations to tooth structure by means of adhesive resin cements. In this article after the definitions of direct and indirect restorative techniques of intracoronal restorations, indications and contraindications, advantages and disadvantages of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations which is one of the indirect techniques were described. All steps to fabricate ceramic inlays and onlays, starting from tooth preparation, to the delivery to patient have been described in detail. Comparison of ceramic inlay and onlay restorations with the other posterior intracoronal restorations have been made from different points of view and information about the average longevities of this kind of restorations have been given.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Diş hekimliğinde seramik inley ve onley restorasyonların kullanımı son 20 yılda büyük artış göstermiştir. Bu. diş hekimi ve hastaların bu estetik ve uzun ömürlü materyale gösterdikleri ilginin artması ve adc/.iv reçine simanlar yardımıyla tam seramik restorasyonların dişe daha iyi tutunabilmesi ile ilgilidir. Bu makalede intrakoronal restorasyonlarda direkt ve indirekt restoratif tekniklerin tanımı yapıldıktan sonra, indirekt tekniklerden biri olan seramik inley ve onley restorasyonların endikasyon ve kontrendikasyonları, avantaj ve dezavantajları belirtilmiştir. Seramik inley ve onleylerin yapımında diş preparasyonundan. restorasyonun hastaya teslimine kadar tüm evreler ayrımdı biçimde anlatılmıştır. Seramik inley ve onley resorasyonların diğer posterior intrakoronal restorasyonlarla çeşitli açılardan karşılaştırılması da yapılmış ve ortalama ömürleri hakkında bilgi verilmiştir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-seramik-inley-onley-restorasyonlar.pdf
  • 1-2
71
82
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Feilzer AJ. Materials and luting cements for indirect restorations. In: Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M: Advances in Operative Dentistry. Vol.1. Quintessence Publishing Co. 2001,95-107.
2. Shillingburg HT. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics, 3rd ed., Quintessence Publishing Co., 1997, s. 171-79.
3. van Dijken JWV, Aberg CH, Oloffson A-L. Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow-up. Journal of Dentistry 1998; 26: 219-25.
4. Burke FJT, Qualtrough AJE. Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic? British Dental Journal 1993; 176: 53-60.
5. Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Sockwell CL, Strickland WD, Wall JT. Clinical evaluation of composite resinsas anterior and posterior restorative materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1975.33:407-16.
6. Lutz F, Phillips RW, Roulet JF Setcos JC. In vivo and in vitro wear of potential posterior composites. Journal of Dental Research 1984; 63: 914-20.
7. Dietschi D, Holz J. A clinical trial of four light-curing posterior composite resins: two year report. Quintessence International 1990; 21: 965-75.
8. St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift Jr EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2003; 89: 551¬57.
9. Thompson JY, Bayne SC, Heymann HO. Mechanical properties of a new mica-based machinable glass seramic for CAD/CAM restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1996;76:619-23.
10. Garber DA, Goldstein RE. Porcelain and Composite Inlays and Onlays. 1st ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. 1994; 23-103.
11. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Adhesive Metal-Free Restorations. 1st ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. 1997; 61-167.
12. Qualtrough AJE, Wilson NHF, Smith GA: The porcelain inlay: a historical review. Operative Dentistry 1990; 15: 61-70.
13. Filho AM, Vieira LCC, Araujo E, Baratieri LN. Ceramic inlays and onlays: Cilinical procedures
for predictable results. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2003; 15: 338-52.
14. Trushkowsky RD. Burgess JO. Compex single tooth restorations. Dental Clinics of North America 2002; 46: 341-65.
15. Banks RG. Conservative posterior ceramic restorations: A literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1990; 63: 619-26.
16. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics 2000; 13: 194-200.
17. Nathanson D. Principles of porcelain use as an inlay/onlay material. In: Garber DA, Goldstein RE. Porcelain and Composite Inlays and Onlays. 1st ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. 1994, 32-7.
18. Broderson SP. Complete-crown and partial coverage tooth preparation designs for bonded cast ceramic restorations. Quintessence International 1994; 25: 535-9.
19. Geurtsen W, Schwarze T, Günay H. Diagnosis, therapy and prevention of the cracked tooth syndrome. Quintessence International 2003; 34:409-17.
20. Blaser PK, Lund MR, Cochran MA, Potter RH. Effects of designs of Class 2 preparations on resistance of teeth to fracture. Operative Dentistry 1983; 8:6-10.
21. Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, Navarro MF, Soares FB. Fracture strenght of human teeth with cavity preparations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1980; 43:419-22.
22. Re GJ, Norling BK, Draheim RN. Fracture resistance of lower molars with varying faciocclusolingual amalgam restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982; 47:518¬21.
23. Re GJ, Norling BK, Draheim RN. Fracture strenght of molars containing three surface amalgam restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982;47:185-87.
24. McCullock AJ, Smith BG. In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. British Dental Journal 1986; 161: 450-52.
25. Eakle WS, Staninec M. Effect of bonded gold inlays on fracture resistance of teeth. Quintessence International 1992; 23: 421-25.
Seramik İnley ve Onley Restorasyonlar
26. Walton JN. Esthetic alternatives for posterior teeth: porcelain and laboratory-processed composite resins. Journal of Canadian Dental Association 1992; 58: 820-23.
27. Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years: Part I. Survival of Dicor complete coverage restorations and effect of internal surface acid etching, tooth position, gender, and age. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999; 81:23-32.
28. Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years: Part II: Effect of thickness of Dicor material and design of tooth preparation. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999; 81: 662¬67.
29. van Dijken JWV. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation. Dental Materials 2003; 19: 670-74.
30. van Dijken JWV, Örmin A, Olofsson L. Clinical performance of pressed ceramic inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer and autoplymerizing resin composite cements. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999; 82: 529¬35.
31. Fradeani M. Aquilano A. Bassein L. Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1997; 78: 346-53.
32. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Miura M, Takshige F, Ebisu S. 6-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Operative Dentistry 1998; 23:318-26.
33. Schulte AG, Vökler A, Reinhardt R. Longevity of ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light-curing composite resin. Journal of Dentistry 2005; 33: 433-42.
34. Blackman R, Barghi N, Duke E. Influence of ceramic thickness on the polymerization of light-cured resin cement. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1990; 63: 295-300.
35. Martin N, Jedynakiewicz NM. Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review. Dental Materials 1999; 15: 54-61.
36. Kelly JR. Giordano R, Pober R, Cima MJ. Fracture surface analysis of dental ceramics: clinically failed restorations. International Journal of Prosthodontics 1990; 3: 430-40.
SI
37. Clark NP, Smith GE. Teaching gold castings in North American Dental Schools. Operative Dentistry 1984; 9: 26-31.
38. Brunton PA, Cattel P, Burke FJT, Wilson NH. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with onlays of three contemporary tooth-colored resin bonded restorative materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999; 82:167-71.
39. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A five-year study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Internatinal 2001; 32: 199-205.
40. Frederickson D, Setcos JC. Clinical Evaluation of indirect posterior composite- restoration over three years. Journal of Dental Research 1994; 73: 381 (Abstr No. 2232).
41. Roulet J-F. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. Journal of Dentistry 1997; 25: 459-73.
42. Maryniuk G, Kaplan SH. Longevity of restorations survey results of dentists'estimates and attitude. Journal of American Dental Association 1986; 112: 39-45.
43. Bentley C, Drake CN. Longevity of restorations in a dental school clinic. Journal of Dental Education 1986; 50: 594-600.
44. Collins CJ, Bryant RW. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: Eight-year findings (Abstract No.31) Journal of Dental Research 1995; 74: 404.
45. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inleys versus conventional composite restorations: Three-year clinical results. British Dental Journal 1995; 179: 343¬49.
46. Isidor F, Bröndum K. A clinical evaluation of porcelain inlays. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1995; 74: 140-44.
47. Mörmann W, Krejci I. Computer-designed inlays after 5 years in situ: clinical performance and scanning electron microscopic evaluation. Quintessence International 1992; 23: 109-15.
48. James D, Yarovesky U. An esthetic inlay technique for posterior teeth. Quintessence International 1993; 14: 725-31.
49. Fuzzi M, Rappelli G. Ceramic inlays: Clinical asssesment and survival rate. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 1999; 1:71-9.
82
Temel KOKSAL, İdil DİKBAŞ, Nuray ÇAPA
50. Blatz MB. Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior restorations. Quintessence International 2002; 33: 415-26.
51. Studer S, Lehner C, Scharer P. Seven year results of leucite reinforced glass-ceramic
52. inlays and onlays (abstract 1375). Journal of Dental Research 1998; 77: 803.
53. Brochu JF, El-Mowafy O. Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-Empress ceramic restorations. Journal of Canadian Dental Association 2002; 68: 233-37.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com