Download PDF
Zahnmedizin up2date 2016; 10(03): 233-249
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-103124
Zahnerhaltung, Prävention und Restauration
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Keramikwerkstoffe in der restaurativen Zahnmedizin

Michael Taschner
,
Ulrich Lohbauer
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 May 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Fazit

  • Moderne keramische Materialien zeigen deutlich verbesserte Materialeigenschaften.

  • Die Festigkeit keramischer Materialien ist entscheidend vom Oberflächenzustand geprägt.

  • Eine sorgfältige Politur bestimmt die Lebensdauer einer keramischen Restauration.

  • Eine anatoforme Gerüstgestaltung ist bei zirkonoxidgetragenem Zahnersatz unerlässlich.

  • Vollkeramik mit hochfesten Materialien eröffnet neue Wege in der Kavitätengestaltung.

  • Bei schmelzbegrenzten Kavitäten sollte der klassischen Adhäsivtechnik der Vorzug gegeben werden.

  • Mindestschichtstärken von Vollkeramik sollten auch nach der okklusalen Adjustierung eingehalten werden.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G et al. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Belli R, Petschelt A, Hofner B et al. Fracture rates and lifetime estimations of CAD/CAM all-ceramic restorations. J Dent Res 2016; 95: 67-73
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 299-307
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Belli R, Scherrer SS, Reich S et al. In vivo shell-like fractures of veneered-ZrO2 fixed dental prostheses. Case Stud Eng Fail Anal 2014; 2: 91-99
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hidaka O, Iwasaki M, Saito M et al. Influence of clenching intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average bite pressure. J Dent Res 1999; 78: 1336-1344
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lohbauer U, Müller FA, Petschelt A. Influence of surface roughness on mechanical strength of resin composite versus glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 250-256
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wissenschaftliche Dokumentation IPS e. max® Press. Schaan, Liechtenstein: Ivoclar Vivadent; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Fairhurst CW, Lockwood PE, Ringle RD et al. Dynamic fatigue of feldspathic porcelain. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 269-273
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Petschelt A et al. Correlation of in vitro fatigue data and in vivo clinical performance of a glassceramic material. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wiederhorn SM. Influence of water vapor on crack propagation in soda-lime glass. J Am Ceram Assoc 1967; 50: 407-414
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Christensen GJ. Porcelain-fused-to-metal versus zirconia-based ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140: 1036-1039
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sax C, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14: 183-202
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Molin MK, Karlsson SL. Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21: 223-227
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96: 237-244
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Swain MV. Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta Biomater 2009; 5: 1668-1677
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ, de Jager N et al. Prestresses in bilayered allceramic restorations. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008; 87: 139-145
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lawn BR, Marshall DB. Contact fracture resistance of physically and chemically tempered glass plates – theoretical model. Phys Chem Glass 1977; 18: 7-18
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F et al. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 393-398
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Frankenberger R, Zeilinger I, Krech M et al. Stability of endodontically treated teeth with differently invasive restorations: Adhesive vs. non-adhesive cusp stabilization. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1312-1320
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sasse M, Krummel A, Klosa K et al. Influence of restoration thickness and dental bonding surface on the fracture resistance of full-coverage occlusal veneers made from lithium disilicate ceramic. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 907-915
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kern M. Keramikschichtstärken neu definiert. ZWR – Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2013; 122: 104-107
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Martins LM et al. Reliability of reduced-thickness and thinly veneered lithium disilicate crowns. J Dent Res 2012; 91: 305-310
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schmitz JH, Beani M. Effect of different cement types on monolithic lithium disilicate complete crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior region. J Prosthet Dent 2015; DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.007.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Arnetzl GV, Arnetzl G. Biomechanische Untersuchung von Inlaygeometrien – Gibt es ein biomechanisches Grundprinzip?. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12: 119-130
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Kielbassa AM, Philipp F. Restoring proximal cavities of molars using the proximal box elevation technique: Systematic review and report of a case. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 751-764
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Rojpaibool T, Leevailoj C. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate ceramics bonded to enamel or dentin using different resin cement types and film thicknesses. J Prosthodont 2015; DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12372.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Van den Breemer CR, Gresnigt MM, Cune MS. Cementation of glass-ceramic posterior restorations: A systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2015; DOI: 10.1155/2015/148954.
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 113-127
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A et al. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014; 42: 800-807
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Beier U, Kapferer I, Matkulcik M et al. Klinische Erfahrungen mit silikatkeramischen Restaurationen. Stomatologie 2012; 109: 19-22
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2014; 27: 33-43
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar