Restoratif Diş Hekimliğinde İnley ve Onley Restorasyonlar
Özet
Restoratif diş hekimliğinde inley ve onley restorasyonlar, arka dişlerdeki büyük madde kayıplarında tercih edilen, diş yapısını maksimum düzeyde koruyan ve tam kronlara göre daha az mine dokusu uzaklaştırılmasını sağlayan konservatif ve minimal invaziv tedavi yöntemleridir. İnleyler tüberkülleri içermezken, onleyler en az bir tüberkülü kapsar; her iki yöntem de direkt veya ölçü alınarak ağız dışında hazırlanan indirekt tekniklerle uygulanabilir. İndirekt uygulamalarda döküm metal, kompozit rezin ve seramik materyaller kullanılır ve bu materyaller geleneksel yöntemlerin yanı sıra bilgisayar destekli tasarım ve üretim (CAD-CAM) ile stereolitografi (SL) gibi yenilikçi 3D baskı teknolojileriyle de üretilebilir. Restorasyonların klinik başarısı ve uzun dönem performansı; kullanılan materyalin mekanik ve fiziksel özelliklerine, oklüzal kuvvetlere karşı aşınma direncine, hassas simantasyon süreçlerine, bruksizm gibi hasta faktörlerinin doğru değerlendirilmesine ve teknik hassasiyete doğrudan bağlıdır.
In restorative dentistry, inlay and onlay restorations are conservative and minimally invasive treatment methods preferred for large material losses in posterior teeth, which protect the tooth structure to the maximum extent and ensure less enamel removal compared to full crowns. While inlays do not involve dental cusps, onlays cover at least one cusp; both methods can be applied through direct or indirect techniques prepared outside the mouth by taking impressions. In indirect applications, cast metal, composite resin, and ceramic materials are utilized, and these materials can be fabricated using traditional methods as well as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and innovative 3D printing technologies like stereolithography (SL). The clinical success and long-term performance of the restorations directly depend on the mechanical and physical properties of the material used, its wear resistance against occlusal forces, precise cementation processes, correct evaluation of patient factors such as bruxism, and technical sensitivity.
Referanslar
Stavridakis MM, Krejci I, Magne P. Immediate dentin sealing of onlay preparations: thickness of pre-cured dentin bonding agent and effect of surface cleaning. Operative Dentistry-University Of Washington. 2005;30(6):747.
Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2000;84(3):289-96.
Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. Journal of Dentistry. 2005;33(6):499-507.
Lu H, Lee Y-K, Oguri M, Powers JM. Properties of a dental resin composite with a spherical inorganic filler. Operative Dentistry. 2006;31(6):734-40.
Cook WD, Johannson M. The influence of postcuring on the fracture properties of photo‐cured dimethacrylate based dental composite resin. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 1987;21(8):979-89.
BAUSCH Jd, Delange C, Davidson C. The influence of temperature on some physical properties of dental composites. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1981;8(4):309-17.
Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson C. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. Journal of Dental Research. 1987;66(11):1636-9.
Barnes D, Blank L, Thompson V, Ginell J. Clinical investigation of a posterior composite materials after 5 and 8 years.Quintessenz. 1991;42(7):1067-80.
Wassell R, Walls A, McCabe J. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. British Dental Journal. 1995;179(9):343-9.
Duquia RdCS, Osinaga PWR, Demarco FF, Habekost L, Conceição EN. Cervical microleakage in MOD restorations: in vitro comparison of indirect and direct composite. Operative Dentistry. 2006;31(6):682-7.
Barone A, Derchi G, Rossi A, Marconcini S, Covani U. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study. Quintessence International. 2008;39(1).
Filho AM, VIEIRA LCC, Araujo E, Baratieri LN. Ceramic inlays and onlays: clinical procedures for predictable results. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2003;15(6):338-52.
AFFAIRS ACOS. Direct and indirect restorative materials. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2003;134(4):463-72.
Franz A, König F, Anglmayer M, Rausch-Fan X, Gille G, Rausch W-D, et al. Cytotoxic effects of packable and nonpackable dental composites. Dental Materials. 2003;19(5):382-92.
Wendt Jr SL, Leinfelder KF. The clinical evaluation of heat-treated composite resin inlays. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1990;120(2):177-81.
Kuijs RH, Fennis WM, Kreulen CM, Roeters FJM, Creugers NH, Burgersdijk RC. A randomized clinical trial of cusp-replacing resin composite restorations: efficiency and short-term effectiveness. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2006;19(4).
Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7(2):71-9.
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence International. 2006;37(2):139-44.
Donly KJ, Jensen ME, Triolo P, Chan D. A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. Quintessence International. 1999;30(3).
Duke E. The introduction of a new class of composite resins ceromers. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. 1999;20(3):246-7.
Trushkowsky R. Ceramic optimized polymer: the next generation of esthetic restorations--Part 1. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry. 1997;18(11):1101-6, 8 passim; quiz 14.
Douglas RD. Color stability of new-generation indirect resins for prosthodontic application. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2000;83(2):166-70.
Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Operative Dentistry. 2000;25(4):324-30.
Hahn P, Schaller HG, Hafner P, Hellwig E. Effect of different luting procedures on the seating of ceramic inlays. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2000;27(1):1-8.
Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dental Materials. 2005;21(3):262-71.
Ritter AV, Baratieri LN. Ceramic restorations for posterior teeth: guidelines for the clinician. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 1999;11(2):72-86.
Åberg CH, Dijken JWv, Olofsson A-L. Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 1994;52(3):140-9.
Borges GA, Sophr AM, De Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2003;89(5):479-88.
Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Australian Dental Journal. 2011;56:97-106.
Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review of the literature. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2004;92(6):557-62.
Sjögren G, Molin M, Van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2004;17(2).
Reiss B. Clinical results of Cerec inlays in a dental practice over a period of 18 years. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. 2006;9(1):11-22.
Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2002;15(2).
Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K. The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2005;136(12):1714-23.
Reiss B. Long-term clinical performance of CEREC restorations and the variables affecting treatment success. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry . 2001;22(6 Suppl):14-8.
Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dental Materials. 2012;28(1):3-12.
Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dental Materials. 2016;32(1):54-64.
ISO A. ISO/ASTM 52900: 2015 Additive Manufacturing–General Principles–Terminology. ASTM F2792-10e1. 2015;1:1-19.
Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW. A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(24):6121-30.
Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. International Journal of Dentistry. 2014;2014.
Puebla K, Arcaute K, Quintana R, Wicker RB. Effects of environmental conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 2012.
Della Bona A, Cantelli V, Britto VT, Collares KF, Stansbury JW. 3D printing restorative materials using a stereolithographic technique: A systematic review. Dental Materials. 2021;37(2):336-50.
