One-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate versus resin composite CAD/CAM onlays

To compare the 1-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate and resin composite CAD/CAM onlay restorations. Twenty patients that required two restorations in posterior teeth, with at least one cusp to be covered, received two onlays. One was made with IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the ot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Souza, Joana, Fuentes, Maria Victoria, Baena, Eugenia, Ceballos, Laura
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Repositorio:BURJC-Digital. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:burjcdigital::52e4b93802fa489036ee4b5750fc917f
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10115/28713
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Odontología
onlay
CAD/CAM
Resin composite blocks
Lithium disilicate
clinical performance
Descripción
Sumario:To compare the 1-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate and resin composite CAD/CAM onlay restorations. Twenty patients that required two restorations in posterior teeth, with at least one cusp to be covered, received two onlays. One was made with IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and the other with Lava Ultimate (3M Oral Care). Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at baseline and 1 year after the onlays were cemented, according to FDI criteria. At each recall, digital photographs, bite-wing radiographs and impressions of the restorations were taken for SEM evaluation of the interface. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). At baseline and in the 1-year recall, both CAD/CAM materials exhibited excellent results in most criteria with similar esthetic, functional and biological properties (p > 0.05). However, deterioration in surface lustre (p = 0.020) and color match/translucency (p = 0.039) were detected for IPS e.max CAD onlays after 1-year. Under SEM evaluation, there were no statistically differences in micromorphological criteria at baseline nor after a year between IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays. Conclusion: After 1 year of clinical service IPS e.max CAD and Lava Ultimate onlays showed a similar clinical performance that needs to be confirmed in long-term evaluations.