RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical performance, survival, and complications of indirect composite inlays, onlays, and overlays on posterior teeth. Digital records of 282 patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were accessed and analyzed retrospectively. The included patients received 469 composite restorations luted with seven different resin-based types of cement, i.e., Filtek Ultimate Flow, Enamel Plus, Relyx Ultimate, Harvard Premium Flow, Relyx Unicem, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, and Filtek Ultimate. The restorations had been clinically and radiographically evaluated annually. The mechanical and clinical complications, e.g., debonding, fracture, and secondary caries, were evaluated and recorded. The examined restorations exhibited a high survival rate (84.9%), and failure was found in only 71 cases. Fracture was the most common cause (n = 36), followed by prosthetic work release (n = 19) and secondary caries (n = 16). There was a statistically significant difference between failure and cement material (Sig. < 0.001); the composite-based cements (87.2%) had a high survival rate compared to the resin-based cement (72.7%). Similarly, the cements with high viscosity (90.2%) had significantly higher survival rates than the low-viscosity cements (78.9%). Moreover, onlays showed higher longevity compared to overlays (Sig. = 0.007), and patients aged under 55 years showed less complications (Sig. = 0.036). Indirect composite restoration was a successful solution to tooth structure loss. The material of the cementation is an important part of the success. Higher survival rate was found in our study when the fixation materials with high viscosity were used, thus suggesting using these materials with indirect restorations. Composite-based cements had significantly higher survival rate than resin-based cements.
RESUMO
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It has been shown that selective etching improves the bond strength of some self-adhesive resin cements to enamel. The same has yet to be determined with dentin pre-treatment. PURPOSE: To evaluate the tensile bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements after two dentin surface pre-treatments, and also to analyze the cement/dentin interface. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twelve human third molars were extracted. The teeth were distributed into seven groups (n = 16). Maxcem Elite Chroma (MAX) (Kerr, Scafati, Italy) and Relyx U200 (RLX) (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) were used without pre-treatment or with two dentin pre-treatments (polyacrylic acid or phosphoric acid). A conventional etch-and-rinse (EAR) luting cement, NX3 Nexus (NX3) (Kerr, Scafati, Italy), was used as an external control group. Before testing, all specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours. Three specimens from each group were prepared for scanning electron microscopy observation (SEM). A tensile bond strength test (TBS) was performed for the remaining samples. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: MAX without pre-treatment and with phosphoric acid etching attained statistically similar bond strengths to NX3 (P > 0.05). There was a statistical difference (P = 0.00488) between RLX without pre-treatment (5.62 MPa) and NX3 (10.88 MPa). Phosphoric acid pre-treatment increases the bond strength values of RLX to a strength that is comparable to NX3 (P > 0.05). The lowest tensile bond strength (TBS) was attained after the application of polyacrylic acid with MAX (1.98 MPa). No statistical differences were found between the RLX bond strength values after polyacrylic acid treatment and RLX without pre-treatment or NX3 (P > 0.05). SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to infiltrate into dentin tubules and form resin tags when applied after phosphoric acid pre-treatment. The failure mode was dominantly adhesive. CONCLUSIONS: On dentin, the self-adhesive resin cement MAX might be an effective alternative to conventional resin cement. Etching the dentin with phosphoric acid does not have a negative effect on the bond strength of MAX to dentin. On the other hand, phosphoric acid improved the bond strength of RLX when compared to EAR cement.
