Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years

Glass ceramics;Dentin bondingagents;Etch-and-rinse;Self-etch;Clinical trialSummary Objective. The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate theeffect of two different adhesive/resin composite combinations for luting of IPSEmpress inlays.Methods. Ninety-four IPS Empress restorations were placed in 31 patients in acontrolled prospective clinical split-mouth study. The restorations were luted withEBS Multi/Compolute (3M Espe) or with Syntac/Variolink II low (Ivoclar Vivadent)without lining. At baseline and after 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 years, the ceramic restorationswere examined according to modified USPHS codes and criteria.Results. Two patients including four restorations missed the 4 years recall (dropout). After 4 years of clinical service, four restorations in two patients (three lutedwith Compolute, one with Variolink II) had to be replaced due to hypersensitivities,90 inlays and onlays were acceptable (failure rate 4%; Kaplan–Meier survivalanalysis). Between the five recalls, a statistically significant deterioration wasfound for the criteria marginal adaptation and inlay fracture (Friedman 2-wayANOVA; p!0.05). Between the adhesives no statistical difference was found. Atbaseline, 95% of the restorations revealed luting composite overhangs. After 4 years,55% of cases had overhangs and 38% showed marginal ditching. No differences werefound for surface roughness, color matching, integrity tooth, proximal contact,hypersensitivity, and satisfaction (pO0.05).Conclusion. For luting of ceramic inlays, no difference between the two lutingsystems was detectable. The overall failure rate after 4 years was 4%.Q 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.