CEREC CAD-CAM seramik overlay restorasyonların 24 aylık klinik takibi: 3 Olgu sunumu

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 üretilmiş ve sonrasında restorasyonlar ışıkla ve kendi kendine sertleşen (dual cure) adeziv bir siman ile yapıştırılmıştır. CAD-CAM sisteminin tercih edilmesi ile; tek seansta, estetik ve dişe benzer özellikler taşıyan indirekt restorasyonlar elde edilmiştir. 12 ve 24 aylık klinik takipler sonucunda, restorasyonlarda sekonder çürüğe, kırığa, renklenmeye ve herhangi bir yapısal bütünlükte bozulmaya rastlanmamıştır. Ayrıca, CAD-CAM sistemi ile hastalar kullanışlı, iyi uyum sağlayan ve dayanıklı indirekt restorasyonlara sahip olmuştur.

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

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 of 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 convenient, well-fitting and durable indirect restorations

PDF

___

1. Collares K, Correa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 687-94.
2. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM Chairside System. Oral Implantol 2014; 7(3): 57-70.
3. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Reich S. New CAD/CAM materials and blocks for chairside procedures. Int J Comput Dent 2013; 16(2): 173-78.
4. Marocho S, Melo R, Macedo L, Valandro L, Bottino M. Strength of a feldspar ceramic according to the thickness and polymerization mode of the resin cement coating. Dent Mater J 2011; 30(3): 323-29
5. Faria AC, Rodrigues RC, de Almeida Antunes RP, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Endodontically treated teeth: Characteristics and considerations to restore them. J Prosthodont Res 2011; 55(2): 69-74.
6. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Anusavice KJ. Ceramic design concepts based on stress distribution analysis. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21(8): 649-52.
7. Frankenberger R, Hehn J, Hajto J, Krämer N, Naumann M, Koch A, et al. Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(1): 177-83.
8. Batalha-Silva S, de Andrada MA, Maia HP, Magne P. Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: Direct versus CAD/CAM inlays. Dent Mater 2013; 29(3): 324-31.
9. Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Carter B, Nasser M, Alrowaili EF. Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of rootfilled teeth (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 25(9): 1-31.
10.Morimoto S, Vieira GF, Agra CM, Sesma N, Gil C. Fracture strength of teeth restored with ceramic inlays and overlays. Braz Dent J 2009; 20(2): 143- 48.
11.Oen KT, Veitz-Keenan A, Spivakovsky S, Wong YJ, Bakarman E, Yip J. CAD/CAM versus traditional indirect methods in the fabrication of inlays, onlays, and crowns (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4: 1-8.
12.Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 256-63.
13.Garlapati R, Venigalla BS, Kamishetty S, Thumu J. Ceramic onlay for endodontically treated mandibular molar. JOFS 2014; 6(1): 69-72.
14.Magne P, Besler UC. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23: 543- 55.
15.Chabouis HF, Faugeron VS, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 1209-18.
16.Hopp CD, Land MF. Consideration for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013; 5: 21-32.
17.Chang C-Y, Kua J-S, Lin Y-S, Chang Y-H. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endocrowns and conventional postand core-supported CEREC crowns. JDS 2009; 4(3): 110-17.
18.Vinothkumar TS, Kandaswamy D, Chanana P. CAD/CAM fabricated single unit all ceramic post core crown restoration. JCD 2011; 14(1): 86-9. 19.Sirona The Dental Company. www.sironausa.com. 2016.
20.Altıncı P, Kiremitçi A. Endodontik tedavili dişlerin restorasyonu. Hacettepe Dis Hek Fak Derg 2007; 31(3): 102-13.
21.Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 216-20.
22.Sjögren G, Molin M, van Dijken J, Bergman M. Ceramic inlays (Cerec) cemented with either a dual-cured or a chemically cured composite resin luting agent. A 2-year clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1995; 53(5): 325-30.