PURPOSE: To evaluate the marginal integrity of three inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis (IRFDP) designs fabricated using monolithic zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 30 IRFDPs were fabricated using 4-YTZP monolithic zirconia and randomly divided into three groups according to the cavity design. Groups 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 (Panavia V5) and subjected to an equivalent of 5 years of aging. The specimens were evaluated under an SEM to measure marginal continuity before and after the aging process. RESULTS: During the whole 5-year aging process, no specimens showed signs of cracking, fracture, or loss of retention in any restorations. In the SEM analysis, most marginal defects observed in the restorations were areas of microgaps at the tooth/cement interface (TC) or zirconia/cement interface (ZC), resulting in loss of adaptation. There was a significant difference between the groups after the aging 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. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay cavity designs including a proximal box and an occlusal extension exhibited better marginal stability than a proximal box without occlusal extension.
Inlays , Zirconium , Zirconium/chemistry , Humans , In Vitro Techniques , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Prosthesis Design , Denture Design , Denture, Partial, Fixed , Dental Materials/chemistry
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.
