Comparison of Adaptation and Microleakage of CAD/CAM Restorations to Inlay Cavities Prepared by Using Different Finishing Methods

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the adaptation and microleakage of CAD/CAM inlay restorations using conventional or ultrasonic finishing equipment and their combinations. Materials & Methods: Inlay cavities were prepared on 66 extracted human lower first molar teeth using one of the following finishing methods: Group I: straight fissure diamond bur; Group II: fissure diamond bur and ultrasonic tip; Group III: 6º tapered conical diamond bur; Group IV: 6º tapered conical diamond bur and ultrasonic tip. Inlay restorations milled from feldspathic ceramic blocks were cemented with resin cement. Adaptation and microleakage of the restorations were evaluated by micro-CT. The adaptation of the restorations was evaluated in four areas and five determined points. The differences between the finishing methods were statistically evaluated at each measurement point. Results: The adaptation of the restorations differed between 1.07 and 330.71 µm. Statistical differences were observed in the marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic inlay restorations due to the finishing method used at some points of the ceramic and cavity interface. However, the microleakage values between the finishing methods did not show a statistical difference. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the microleakage of the ceramic inlay restorations is not affected by the finishing method used. However, the adaptation of the restoration could be affected by the finishing method, depending on the area. Clinical Significance: Preparations for inlay restorations prepared with these special burrs and ultrasonic instruments created better marginal fit, which could result in more successful ceramic inlays.

Keywords

• ceramic inlays
• microleakage
• ultrasonic instruments
• inlay preparation
• micro-ct

References

1. Fan J, Xu Y, Si L, Li X, Fu B, Hannig M. Long-term Clinical Performance of Composite Resin or Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Oper Dent. 2021;46(1):25–44. doi:10.2341/19-107-LIT.
2. Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Ozcan M. Survival Rate of Resin and Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(9):985–994. doi:10.1177/0022034516652848.
3. Meyer JA, Cardoso LC, Araujo E, Baratieri LN. Ceramic inlays and onlays: clinical procedures for predictable results. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15(6):338–352. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2003.tb00307.x.
4. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D, et al. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):590–597 e3. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.006.
5. Holberg C, Rudzki-Janson I, Wichelhaus A, Winterhalder P. Ceramic inlays: is the inlay thickness an important factor influencing the fracture risk? J Dent. 2013;41(7):628–635. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2013.04.010.
6. Zimmer S, Gohlich O, Ruttermann S, Lang H, Raab WH, Barthel CR. Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study. Oper Dent. 2008;33(5):484–487. doi:10.2341/07-142.
7. Hopp CD, Land MF. Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013;5:21–32. doi:10.2147/CCIDE.S42016.
8. Magne P, Belser UC. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(6):543–555.

9. Mormann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness, and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;20:113–125. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003.
10. Thompson MC, Thompson KM, Swain M. The all-ceramic, inlay supported fixed partial denture. Part 1. Ceramic inlay preparation design: a literature review. Aust Dent J. 2010;55(2):120–231. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01214.x.
11. Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Comparison and evaluation of marginal and internal gaps in cobalt-chromium alloy copings fabricated using subtractive and additive manufacturing. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(1):56–64. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.008.
12. Stappert CF, Chitmongkolsuk S, Silva NR, Att W, Strub JR. Effect of mouth-motion fatigue and thermal cycling on the marginal accuracy of partial coverage restorations made of various dental materials. Dent Mater. 2008;24(9):1248–1257. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2008.02.005.
13. da Silva TF, de Melo MP, Pereira JR, Takeshita WM, Ceribelli BM, Vessoni Iwaki LC. Subjective qualitative assessment of the finish line of prosthetic preparations submitted to different finishing instruments. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(3):375–381. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.003.
14. Chen YL, Chang HH, Chiang YC, Lin CP. Application and development of ultrasonics in dentistry. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013;112(11):659–665. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2013.05.007.
15. Hadi L, Syafrinani M, Chairunnisa R. The Influence of Using Rotary and Ultrasonic Instruments on The Surface Roughness of Finishing Line and Marginal Adaptation In Metal-Porcelain Restoration. NVEO. 2021:2216–2230.
16. Horne P, Bennani V, Chandler N, Purton D. Ultrasonic margin preparation for fixed prosthodontics: a pilot study. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(3):201–209. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00477.x.
17. Naumova EA, Schiml F, Arnold WH, Piwowarczyk A. Marginal quality of ceramic inlays after three different instrumental cavity preparation methods of the proximal boxes. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):793–803. doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2492-0.
18. Ekici Z, Kilicarslan MA, Bilecenoglu B, Ocak M. Micro-CT Evaluation of the Marginal and Internal Fit of Crown and Inlay Restorations Fabricated Via Different Digital Scanners belonging to the Same CAD-CAM System. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(3):381–389. doi:10.11607/ijp.6822.
19. Scotti N, Baldi A, Vergano EA, Tempesta RM, Alovisi M, Pasqualini D, et al. Tridimensional Evaluation of the Interfacial Gap in Deep Cervical Margin Restorations: A Micro-CT Study. Oper Dent. 2020;45(5):E227–E236. doi:10.2341/19-161-L.
20. Bayrak A, Akat B, Ocak M, Kiotaliotacarslan MA, Ozcan M. Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis of Fit of Ceramic Inlays Produced with Different CAD Software Programs. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2021;29(3):1–6. doi:10.1922/EJPRD_2046Bayrak06.
21. Alajaji NK, Bardwell D, Finkelman M, Ali A. Micro-CT Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays: Comparison of the Marginal and Internal Fit of Five and Three Axis CAM Systems with a Heat Press Technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(1):49–58. doi:10.1111/jerd.12271.
22. Kim JH, Cho BH, Lee JH, Kwon SJ, Yi YA, Shin Y, et al. Influence of preparation design on fit and ceramic thickness of CEREC 3 partial ceramic crowns after cementation. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(2):107–113. doi:10.3109/00016357.2014.956145.
23. Rippe MP, Monaco C, Volpe L, Bottino MA, Scotti R, Valandro LF. Different Methods for Inlay Production: Effect on Internal and Marginal Adaptation, Adjustment Time, and Contact Point. Oper Dent. 2017;42(4):436–444. doi:10.2341/16-093-L.
24. Uzgur R, Ercan E, Uzgur Z, Colak H, Yalcin M, Ozcan M. Cement Thickness of Inlay Restorations Made of Lithium Disilicate, Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic and Nano-Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Evaluated Using 3D X-Ray Micro-Computed Tomography. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(5):456–460. doi:10.1111/jopr.12521.
25. Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Ozcelik TB. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(6):890–895. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.006.
26. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Luthy H, Hammerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(4):383–388.
27. Keshvad A, Hooshmand T, Asefzadeh F, Khalilinejad F, Alihemmati M, Van Noort R. Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(7):535–540. doi:10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00745.x.
28. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaptation of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent. 2014;42(6):677–683. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.016.
29. Ellis R, Bennani V, Purton D, Chandler N, Lowe B. The effect of ultrasonic instruments on the quality of preparation margins and bonding to dentin. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(4):278–285. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00495.x.
30. Moon W, Chung SH, Chang J. Effect of Deep Margin Elevation on Interfacial Gap Development of CAD/CAM Inlays after Thermomechanical Cycling. Oper Dent. 2021;46(5):529–536. doi:10.2341/20-310-L.
31. Ozcan M, Pfeiffer P, Nergiz I. Marginal adaptation of ceramic inserts after cementation. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):132–136.
32. Zaruba M, Kasper R, Kazama R, Wegehaupt FJ, Ender A, Attin T, et al. Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):579–587. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0988-1.
33. Coldea A, Fischer J, Swain MV, Thiel N. Damage tolerance of indirect restorative materials (including PICN) after simulated bur adjustments. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):684–694. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.007.
34. Bottino MA, Campos F, Ramos NC, Rippe MP, Valandro LF, Melo RM. Inlays made from a hybrid material: adaptation and bond strengths. Oper Dent. 2015;40(3):E83–91. doi:10.2341/13-343-L.