Search

Objective Literature on edge chipping test applied to dental materials and structures has been systematically reviewed with regard to the evaluation methods and parameters used. Data A systematic search of the literature retrieved 3484 relevant studies. After removing duplicates, 1848 records were screened by titles and abstracts and 1797 were excluded; 51 papers were assessed full text for eligibility. Twenty papers were included in this study and they were organized according to the dental materials and structures tested as follows: 2 studies on human tooth, 9 on dental ceramics, 5 on polymer-based composites, and 4 studies evaluated both ceramic and polymer-based materials. Sources MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched up to June 2019 without restriction on date and language. Study selection In vitro studies using edge chipping test on dental materials and structures were included. Conclusions Different methods have been used for edge chipping test, regardless of reported parameters. There is significant evidence that edge chipping test is a relevant approach to predict chipping behavior of dental materials and tooth tissues because chips produced from most edge chipping studies are similar to clinically reported chipping failures.

Contains fulltext : 172399.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the longevity of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations placed in a web-based practice-based research network and to investigate risk factors associated with restoration failures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected by a practice-based research network called Ceramic Success Analysis (CSA). 5791 inlay/onlay ceramic restorations were placed in 5523 patients by 167 dentists between 1994 and 2014 in their dental practices. For each restoration specific information related to the tooth, procedures and materials used were recorded. Annual failure rates (AFRs) were calculated and variables associated with failure were assessed by a multivariate Cox-regression analysis with shared frailty. RESULTS: The mean observation time was 3 years (maximum 15 years) of clinical service, and AFRs at 3 and 10 years follow up were calculated as 1.0% and 1.6%. Restorations with cervical outline in dentin showed a 78% higher risk for failure compared to restorations with margins in enamel. The presence of a liner or base of glass-ionomer cement resulted in a risk for failure twice as large as that of restorations without liner or base material. Restorations performed with simplified adhesive systems (2-step etch-and-rinse and 1-step self-etch) presented a risk of failure 142% higher than restorations performed with adhesives with bonding resin as a separate step (3-step etch-and-rinse and 2-step self-etch). 220 failures were recorded and the most predominant reason for failure was fracture of the restoration or tooth (44.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic inlay/onlay restorations made from several glass ceramic materials and applied by a large number of dentists showed a good survival. Deep cervical cavity outline, presence of a glass ionomer lining cement, and use of simplified adhesive systems were risk factors for survival.