IADR Abstract Archives
14-year Clinical Evaluation of RelyX Unicem for Luting IPS-Empress Inlays.
Objectives: Aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate clinically the adhesive performance of two different luting materials for leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic inlays and onlays after 14 years in vivo.
Methods: 83 IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent) inlays and onlays were placed in 30 (19 females/11 males) patients under rubberdam. The inlays and onlays were luted in two different ways: 43 restorations were fixed with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem, RX, 3M ESPE) and 40 restorations were inserted with Variolink II low (SV, Ivoclar-Vivadent) after pretreatment of the cavities with an etch-and-rinse multistep adhesive (Syntac Classic, Ivoclar Vivadent). Recalls were performed after 2 weeks (n=83), 6 months (n=83), 1 year (n=82), 2 years (n= 82), 3 years (n=82), 4 years (n=74) and 14 years (n=58). Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated all restorations using modified USPHS criteria.
Results: After 14 years 58 restorations could be evaluated. Eight patients (including 25 inlays) missed the 14 years recall. Seven of the 83 restorations had to be replaced (failure rate 8%; Kaplan-Meier). Three of them (SV group) suffered bulk fractures at the 14 years recall. After 14 years of clinical service, SV revealed significantly better results regarding discoloration of the luting gap (Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.05). No statistically significant differences were computed between SV and RX for the remaining criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, p>0.05). Over the 14-year period statistically significant deteriorations were found for colour match, marginal integrity and integrity of the tooth for both luting procedures (Friedman-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem showed a similar clinical performance compared to the combination of multistep etch-and-rinse adhesive and Variolink II low after 14 years.
Methods: 83 IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent) inlays and onlays were placed in 30 (19 females/11 males) patients under rubberdam. The inlays and onlays were luted in two different ways: 43 restorations were fixed with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem, RX, 3M ESPE) and 40 restorations were inserted with Variolink II low (SV, Ivoclar-Vivadent) after pretreatment of the cavities with an etch-and-rinse multistep adhesive (Syntac Classic, Ivoclar Vivadent). Recalls were performed after 2 weeks (n=83), 6 months (n=83), 1 year (n=82), 2 years (n= 82), 3 years (n=82), 4 years (n=74) and 14 years (n=58). Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated all restorations using modified USPHS criteria.
Results: After 14 years 58 restorations could be evaluated. Eight patients (including 25 inlays) missed the 14 years recall. Seven of the 83 restorations had to be replaced (failure rate 8%; Kaplan-Meier). Three of them (SV group) suffered bulk fractures at the 14 years recall. After 14 years of clinical service, SV revealed significantly better results regarding discoloration of the luting gap (Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.05). No statistically significant differences were computed between SV and RX for the remaining criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, p>0.05). Over the 14-year period statistically significant deteriorations were found for colour match, marginal integrity and integrity of the tooth for both luting procedures (Friedman-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem showed a similar clinical performance compared to the combination of multistep etch-and-rinse adhesive and Variolink II low after 14 years.