World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  16 (2025)
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Three Different Materials Restored in Class II Inlay Cavity Preparations: An In Vitro Study

Sudhakar Naidu, Rajasekhar Vemareddy, Balaraju Korrai, Akhila Nalli, Someshwar Battu, Jyotsnanjali Thati

Keywords : Indirect composite, Inlay, Marginal adaptation, Metal castings, Polyether ether ketone

Citation Information : Naidu S, Vemareddy R, Korrai B, Nalli A, Battu S, Thati J. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Three Different Materials Restored in Class II Inlay Cavity Preparations: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (5):411-417.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2424

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate the marginal adaptation of polyether ether ketone (PEEK), cobalt-chromium (CoCr) metal, and indirect composites in class II mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) inlay cavity preparations. Materials and methods: A total of 30 freshly extracted maxillary premolars are collected and randomly divided into three groups of 10 samples each (N = 10). Group I comprises Metal inlays (CoCr), group II comprises PEEK inlays, and group III comprises Indirect composite inlays. Class II MOD inlay cavities are prepared with no. 271 and 169L burs. Cavity preparations for all the groups are standardized using a Williams-calibrated probe. The PEEK and metal inlay cavity preparations are scanned and milled with the help of a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) machine. Composite inlays are prepared using an indirect lab technique. Inlay restorations are luted with resin-modified glass ionomer luting cement, and the specimens are subjected to thermocycling for 24 hours. Each specimen is cut horizontally at the level of the gingival seat. The cut specimens are observed under a scanning electron microscope to investigate the gaps formed at the restoration/cement interface and the cement/tooth interface. Results: Marginal adaptation of metal inlays is less compared to PEEK inlays and indirect composite inlays. However, the marginal gaps of all three inlays are within the clinically acceptable range. Conclusion: Marginal adaptation of PEEK inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) on class II MOD preparations on maxillary premolars has shown significant values compared to the CoCr metal inlays and indirect composite inlays. The marginal gap of metal inlays, PEEK inlays, and indirect composite inlays was <100 μm, which is clinically acceptable. Clinical significance: Polyether ether ketone is a thermoplastic organic polymer that is biocompatible and possesses properties similar to bone. It is milled by CAD/CAM processes and does not exhibit any casting shrinkage, unlike conventional metal inlays. Additionally, it does not demonstrate polymerization shrinkage, as seen with indirect composite inlays.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Bhanot S, Mahajan P, Bajaj N, et al. Fracture resistance of lab composite versus all-ceramic restorations in class II inlay cavity preparations: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2022;25(3):258–263. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_261_21
  2. Chen YC, Lin CL, Hou CH. Investigating inlay designs of class II cavity with deep margin elevation using finite element method. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):264. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01630-z
  3. Azeem RA, Sureshbabu NM. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(1):2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_213_16
  4. de Assis FS, Lima SN, Tonetto MR, et al. Evaluation of bond strength, marginal integrity, and fracture strength of bulk-vs incrementally-filled restorations. J Adhes Dent 2016;18(4):317–323. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a36516
  5. Kalla B, Sirisha K, Mandava J. Marginal adaptation of CAD-CAM fabricated ceramic inlays: an in-vitro evaluation. Int J Sci Res 2020;9(6):732–735. DOI: 10.21275/SR20611142527
  6. Bhatt A, Gupta V, Rajkumar B. Occlusion: the foundation of dentistry: a review. Int J Dent Health Sci 2015;2(2):342–348.
  7. Jaiswal S, Vagarali H, Pujar M, et al. Recent advances and research in aesthetic restorative materials. Int J Oral Health Dent 2020;6(2):98–102. DOI: 10.18231/j.ijohd.2020.022
  8. Thiruchitrambalam M, Kumar DB, Shanmugam D, et al. A review on PEEK composites–manufacturing methods, properties and applications. Mater Today Proceed 2020;33(1):1085–1092. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.124
  9. Liu Y, Fang M, Zhao R, et al. Clinical applications of polyetheretherketone in removable dental prostheses: accuracy, characteristics, and performance. Polymers (Basel) 2022;14(21):4615. DOI: 10.3390/polym14214615
  10. Liao C, Li Y, Tjong SC. Polyetheretherketone and its composites for bone replacement and regeneration. Polymers (Basel) 2020;12(12):2858. DOI: 10.3390/polym12122858
  11. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North AM 2011;55(3):559–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  12. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, et al. Dentistry 4.0 technologies applications for dentistry during COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain Operat Comp 2021;2:87–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.susoc.2021.05.002
  13. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(6):ZE18–ZE24. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12294.6129
  14. Hopp CD, Land MF. Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosm Invest Dent 2013;5:21–32. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S42016
  15. Nandini S. Indirect resin composites. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):184–194. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.73377
  16. Magne P, Knezevic A. Simulated fatigue resistance of composite resin versus porcelain CAD/CAM overlay restorations on endodontically treated molars. Quintessence Int 2009;40(2):125–133.
  17. Oskoee SS, Bahari M, Navimipour EJ, et al. Factors affecting marginal integrity of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations. Jo Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Pros 2017;11(2):101–109. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2017.019
  18. Bonfante EA, Calamita M, Bergamo ET. Indirect restorative systems—a narrative review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023;35(1):84–104. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13016
  19. Ozakar-Ilda N, Zorba YO, Yildiz M, et al. Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18(3):e521–e528. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.18491
  20. Luo C, Liu Y, Peng B, et al. PEEK for oral applications: recent advances in mechanical and adhesive properties. Polymers (Basel) 2023;15(2):386. DOI: 10.3390/polym15020386
  21. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991;7(2):107–113. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(91)90055-4
  22. Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent 2014;8(4):437–444. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.143612
  23. Kim KB, Kim JH, Kim WC, et al. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gap of metal-ceramic crown fabricated with a selective laser sintering technology: two-and three-dimensional replica techniques. J Adv Prosthod 2013;5(2):179–186. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.179
  24. Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, et al. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(6):890–895. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.006
  25. Cristian AC, Jeanette L, Francisco MR, et al. Correlation between microleakage and absolute marginal discrepancy in zirconia crowns cemented with four resin luting cements: an in vitro study. Int J Dent 2016;2016:8084505. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8084505
  26. Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based class V restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2019;13(4):599–606. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401435
  27. Sakrana AA. In vitro evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of different esthetic restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21(6):575–580. DOI: 10.1590/1679-775720130064
  28. Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, et al. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(3):25–32. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-3-25
  29. Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N. Shrinkage stresses generated during resin-composite applications: a review. J Dent Biomec 2010;2010:131630. DOI: 10.4061/2010/131630
  30. Nwani CD, Lakra WS, Nagpure NS, et al. Toxicity of the herbicide atrazine: effects on lipid peroxidation and activities of antioxidant enzymes in the freshwater fish channa punctatus (bloch). Int J Environ Res Pub Health 2010;7(8):3298–3312. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph7083298
  31. Escobar PM, Kishen A, Lopes FC, et al. A CAD/CAM-based strategy for concurrent endodontic and restorative treatment. Restor Dent Endod 2019;44(3):e27. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2019.44.e27
  32. Papathanasiou I, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, et al. The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):217. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01202-7
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.