StomatologyEduJ 5(1) SEJ_4-2017r | Page 46

PARTIAL CERAMIC CROWNS. ESTHETIC AND TISSUE CONSERVATIVE RESTORATIONS – PART I: POSTERIOR TEETH 276 Critical thickness of ceramic = 2 mm Figure 11. Different preparation designs, from a prospective clinical study. influence of retentive, partially retentive and non- retentive preparation designs on marginal quality was investigated (Fig. 9) after thermo-mechanical loading. 26 In general, no significant differences of the marginal quality could be found between the three preparations. However, few parallel walls facilitate the placement of the PCCs, because such walls are used for guidance to secure proper seating during luting. However, no sharp edges are allowed, which impair proper seating and correct fit of the restorations. Furthmore, increased shear forces may arise and compromise the strength and longevity of the entire restoration. The retention rate of PCCs using a defect-oriented preparation design as described above was studied in a number of clinical investigations, and loss of retention was found to be low and mainly dependent upon the luting material and its correct handling (see below). 10,27 It can be concluded that retentive cavity designs with rather parallel walls are not needed for ceramic partial crowns and a more defect oriented preparation design with only few parallel walls is recommended. Approximal box depth The approximal cavity floor with a margin located in dentin has long been considered to be a problem for adhesive restorations in general. Insufficient bonding to dentin and insufficient cavity access with the consequence that the proper technique could not be correctly performed were reasons for bond failure resulting e.g. in secondary caries. However, new bonding systems (see below) have improved the bond to dentin dramatically. Anyhow, it is important that the required steps for good adhesive bonding can properly be executed; thus excellent accessibility also to approximal cavity floors is necessary, especially during luting. Recently, the “proximal box elevation technique” has been introduced as an alternative method to restore large cavities with proximal margins below the cement- enamel junction by sealing the dentin margin with an adhesive/direct composite prior to placement of a direct or indirect restoration in a second step (28). The use of self-adhesive resin cements may not be suitable in this case. Little clinical experience exists with PCCs and the proximal box elevation technique. Preparation/polishing Instruments Cavity preparation is usually performed using diamond burs (Fig. 10) with a cylindrical or conical shape and a flat head and rounded edges. Fine grit instruments are recommended for finishing the cavity margins, which – by the way – may also improve bonding of SE adhesives (see below), because the created thin smear-layer allows for better permeation for these substances. Ultrasound preparation instruments can also be used for finishing approximal boxes. Fine grit diamond instruments can also be employed for occlusal and approximal adjustments of ceramic partial crowns. Important is that this adjustment must be performed avoiding heat and crack initiation; water coolant is recommended. Furthermore, ceramic surfaces must be polished following adjustments, in order to prevent/reduce plaque adhesion, increased abrasion of opposing teeth and crack propagation. 18,29 Achieving smooth surfaces depends on a sequential application of all polishing steps. 30 Examples for ceramic partial crown preparations in posterior teeth are shown in Fig. 11. 7. Which adhesive luting material? Main problems of these materials are the washing out and wear of the luting materials in the luting space, the discoloration and eventually debonding of the restoration. Generally, PCCs fabricated from different silicate based ceramics must be adhesively luted. Suitable materials are composite resins (only light or dual curing materials) in combination with dental adhesives (E&R), self-adhesive cements or compomers (Fig. 12). Resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) have been marketed for this purpose, but in vitro we have observed problems with one of these materials, leading to fractures of the PCCs after thermo-mechanical loading. This Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(4): 270-281 http://www.stomaeduj.com