RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the marginal integrity of three inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis (IRFDP) designs fabricated using monolithic zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses were fabricated using a 4-YTZP monolithic zirconia, and divided randomly into 3 groups according to the cavity design. Group ID2 and ID1.5 received an inlay cavity preparation which includes a proximal box and an occlusal extension with a depth of 2 mm or 1.5 mm respectively. Group PB received a proximal box cavity preparation without an occlusal extension. The restorations were fabricated and cemented using a dual cure resin cement (Panava V5) and subjected to an equivalent of 5 years of ageing. The specimens were evaluated under a SEM to measure marginal continuity before and after the ageing process. RESULTS: During the whole 5-year ageing process, no specimens showed signs of cracking,fracture or loss of retention in any of the restorations. In the SEM analysis, most of the marginal defects observed in the restorations were areas of micro-gaps at the TC (tooth/cement interface) or ZC (zirconia/cement interface) resulting in loss of adaptation. There was a significant difference between the groups after the ageing process at both the TC (F=4.762, p<.05) and ZC (F=6.975, p<.05), with group ID2 presenting the best performance. There was a significant difference between TC and ZC in all groups (p<.05) with ZC presenting more gaps in all groups. CONCLUSION: Inlay cavity design including a proximal box and an occlusal extension exhibited better marginal stability than a proximal box without occlusal extension.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess the short-term outcomes of two different conservative preparation designs for posterior zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses (IRFDPs) and to analyze the marginal integrity of such restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with a missing maxillary first molar participated in this study and were divided randomly into two groups: one that received abutment preparations for inlay retainers (ID group, n = 20), including a proximal box and an occlusal extension, and one that received only proximal box preparations (PB group, n = 10). Zirconia IRFDPs were bonded in position and followed up after 2 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and then annually. The in situ restorations were duplicated utilizing a single-step putty/wash impression technique at the 2-week and 2-year follow-up visits. Restoration margins were evaluated under scanning electron microscopy, and marginal continuity was calculated as a percentage of the whole margin at the tooth-cement (TC) interface and the zirconia-cement (ZC) interface. RESULTS: After a mean observation period of 26.2 months, all restorations were still in function. The only complication encountered was debonding of restorations; however, they were re-bonded back in place without issue. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier 2-year survival rate for the IRFDPs was 86.6%. There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding percentage of continuous margins (P < .05) after 2 years, with the percentage of continuous margins in the ID group at 92.8% and 91.5% at the TC and ZC interfaces, respectively, and in the PB group at 84.1% and 78.6% at the TC and ZC interfaces, respectively. CONCLUSION: Zirconia-based monolithic IRFDPs can be recommended for short-term replacement of a single maxillary molar.