CEREC CAD-CAM seramik overlay restorasyonların 24 ay izlem süresi: 3 Olgu sunumu

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 139 - 143, 01.12.2017

Mağrur Kazak

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.331009

Abstract

Bu olgu sunumunda, arka bölge dişler için CAD-CAM tekniği
ile üretilen overlay restorasyonların 24 aylık takibinin incelenmesi
amaçlanmıştır. Tüm overlay restorasyonlar feldspatik seramik bloklardan üretilmişlerdir.
Sonrasında restorasyonlar ışınla ve kendi kendine sertleşebilen (dual cure)
adeziv bir siman ile yapıştırılmışlardır. CAD-CAM sisteminin tercih edilmesi
ile; tek bir seansta, estetik ve dişe benzer özellikler taşıyan indirekt
restorasyonlar üretilmiştir. 12 ve 24 aylık klinik takipler sonucunda, yapıştırılan
restorasyonlarda sekonder çürüğe, kırığa, renkleşmeye ve herhangi bir yapısal
bütünlükte kayıba rastlanmamıştır. Ayrıca, CAD-CAM sistemi ile, hastalar
kullanışlı, iyi uyum sağlayan ve dayanıklı indirekt restorasyonlara sahip
olmuşlardır. 

Keywords

CAD-CAM, daimi diş restorasyonu, overlay, seramik

24 months follow-up CEREC CAD-CAM ceramic overlay restorations: Report of 3 cases

Abstract

The objective of this follow-up case series
report was to examine the overlay restorations of posterior teeth produced with
CAD- CAM technique over a functional period of 24 months. All overlays were
made from feldspathic ceramic blocks and cemented with a dual cure adhesive
cement. In
a single appointment, esthetic and tooth like indirect restorations were
produced with CAD-CAM system. Clinical evaluation was done and follow-up after
12 and 24 months showed no secondary caries, fracture, discoloration and
loosening of the structural integrity of all overlays. Also, with CAD-CAM system,
the patients had convinent, well fitting and durable indirect restorations.

Keywords

CAD–CAM, ceramic, overlay, permanent dental restoration

References

• Batalha-Silva S, de Andrada MA, Maia HP, Magne P, 2013. Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: Direct versus CAD/CAM inlays. Dent Mater, 29(3), 324-331. Chabouis HF, Faugeron VS, Attal JP, 2013. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review. Dent Mater, 29, 1209-1218. Chang C-Y, Kua J-S, Lin Y-S, Chang Y-H, 2009. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional postand core-supported CEREC crowns. JDS, 4(3), 110-117. Collares K, Correa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, Huysmans M-C DNJM, Opdam NJM, 2016. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater, 32, 687-694. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Anusavice KJ, 2000. Ceramic design concepts based on stress distribution analysis. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 21(8), 649-652. Frankenberger R, Hehn J, Hajto J, Krämer N, Naumann M, Koch A, Roggendorf MJ, 2013. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Investig, 17(1), 177-183. Garlapati R, Venigalla BS, Kamishetty S, Thumu J, 2014. Ceramic onlay for endodontically treated mandibular molar. JOFS, 6(1), 69-72.