Fogorvosi szemle, 2006 (99. évfolyam, 1-6. szám)

2006-02-01 / 1. szám

8

FOGORVOSI SZEMLE ■ 99. évf. 1. sz. 2006.

ségük azonban (egyes esetekben) nagyobb a zománcénál, és emiatt az antagonista fogak fokozott attriciójával kell számolni.

Az elkészített munkák objektív kritériumok alapján történő vizsgálata feltétlenül közelebb viszi az orvost a megfelelő értékeléshez, és ezen keresztül a munkák minőségének javításához.

Ebben a USPHS minőségi kritériumok vezérfonalként szolgálnak, azonban a teljes körű értékelés érdekében kiegészítő vizsgálatokra van szükség.

Irodalom

1. Bánóczi J, Esztári I, Fazekas Á, Herczegh B, Szabó J: Cariológia és Endodontia. Medicina, Budapest, 1997; 105.

2. De Crousaz P, Marthaler TM, Wiesner V, Bandi A, Steiner M, Robert A És mtsai: Caries prevalence in children after 12 years of salt fluoridation in a canton of Switzerland. Schweiz Monatsch Zahnmed 1985; 95: 805-815.

3. Dietschi D, Spreafico R: Adhesive metal-free restaurations, current concepts for the esthetic treatment of posterior teeth. Quintessence Books, Berlin, 1999; 13, 79-97.

4. Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M: Fémmentes inlay-hidak. Quintessenz2002; 1: 357-368.

5. Etemadi S, Smaler RJ, Drummond PW, Goodheart J: Assesment of tooth preparation designs for posterior resin-bonded porcelain restaurations. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 691-697.

6. Fischer DW, Caputo AA, Shillingburg FIT, Duncanson MG: Photoelastic analysis of inlay and onlay preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1975; 33: 47-54.

7. Fuzzi M, Rapelli G: Ceramic inlays: clinical assessment and survival rate. J Adhes Dent1999; 1: 71-79.

8. GemalMaz D: Use of heat-pressed, leucit reinforced ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:133-135.

9. Geursten W: The cracked-tooth syndrome: clinical features and case reports. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1992; 12: 395-405.

10. Hannig M, Weinle S, Albers HK: Der Einfluss modifizierter Preparationsformen auf die Randqualitat von Kompositinlays aus SR-lsosit. Dtsch ZahnärztlZ1991; 46: 611-614.

11. Harris N, G arcia-Godoy F: Primary Preventive Dentistry. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004; 3-4.

12. Hayasi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takashige F, Ebisu S: Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2000; 25 [6]: 473-481.

13. Johnson GH, Bales DJ, Gordon GE, Powell LV: Clinical performance of composite resin restaurations. Quuintessence Int 1992; 23: 705-711.

14. Khera SC, Carpenter CW, Staley RN: Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth and their fracture potential. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 139-147.

15. Knight GT, Berry TG, Barghi N, Burns TR: Effect of two methods of moisture control on marginal microleakage between resin composite and etched enamel: a clinical study. Int J Prosth 1993; 6: 475-479.

16. Kostka EC, Noack MJ, Blunck U, Koulet JF: Einfluß von Dentinhaftmitteln auf den approximalen Randschluß keramischer Inlays. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z1991; 46 [9]: 615-617.

17. Kunzelmann KH, Krause F, Hickel R: Dentinhaftung von Kompozitfüllungen und Keramikinlays in Klasse II. Kavitäten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z1993; 48 [11]: 724-727.

18. Lopez LMP, Leitao JGM, Douglas WH: Effect of a new resin inlay/ onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement. Quintessence Int 1991;22:641-645.

19. Mahajan M, Sikri VK: Comparative evaluation of the clinical performance of three posterior composite resins. J Conservative Dentistry 2001; 4: 101.

20. McManus V: Caring for tooth-colored restaurations. J of Cosmetic Dentistry 2004; 20: 50-55.

21. NathaUson D: Current developments in esthetic dentistry. Curr Opin Dent 1991; 1:206-211.

22. RygeG, Snyder M: Evaluating the clinical quality of restaurations. JADA 1973; 87: 369-377.

23. Ryge G: Clinical criteria. Int Dent J1980; 30: 347-358.

24. Schillinburg HT, Jacobi R, Brackett SE: Fundamentals of tooth preparations for cast metal and porcelain restorations. Quintessence Book, Berlin, 1991; 205-258.

Dr. Lempel E, Dr. Tóth V, Dr. Szalma J, Dr. Szabó Gy:

Clinical Evaluation of a Quality Criteria System for Ceramic Inlay Restorations

The aim of this study was to test the utilization of a generally accepted quality criteria system (United States Public Health Services Modified Quality Criteria) in the authors’ practice, in the cases of all ceramic inlays and onlays.

41 ceramic inlays/onlays - 29 pressed and 12 laminated - were made for 28 patients.

Restorations were controlled after 2 years of cementation. According to the USPHS criteria system the following characteristics were controlled: anatomic contour, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, color match, secondary caries, and surface roughness.

In addition, postoperative sensitivity, patient’s satisfaction and tooth vitality were examined as well. The USPHS quality criteria system together with the complementary data proved to be an objective examination method that was easily applicable to our clinical practice.

On the basis of these studies the utilization of this system together with patient’s satisfaction, tooth vitality and sensitivity records appeared a good basis for a regular quality control system of ceramic inlays and onlays.

Key words: ceramic inlays, onlays; USPHS Quality Criteria; retrospective study