Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure.
BACKGROUND
The influence of different types of restorative design features on the long-term survival of Dicor glass-ceramic restorations is only partially understood.


OBJECTIVE
This study examined the effect of different types of luting agents and preparation core structures on the survival of Dicor glass-ceramic restorations functioning in vivo.


METHODS
A total of 1444 Dicor glass-ceramic restorations were placed on the teeth of 417 adults. Failure was defined as a restoration that required remake because of material fracture. The survival of restorations of different types, with different luting agents and preparation core structures, was described with Kaplan-Meier survival functions. The significance of differences in survival between different tooth or tooth-substitute preparation core structures and different luting agents was determined with the log-rank test.


RESULTS
The probability of survival of a typical acid-etched Dicor restoration luted to gold preparation core structures was 91% at 16 years compared with 75% for dentin preparation core structures (P<.01). The survival of acid-etched Dicor restorations luted to dentin preparations was significantly better than nonacid-etched restorations luted to dentin. Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted with resin composite exhibited a more favorable survival function than those luted with glass ionomer (P<.01) and zinc phosphate (P<.05). Differences between restorations luted with glass ionomer or zinc phosphate agents were not significant.


CONCLUSIONS
Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted to gold preparation core structures exhibited significantly better intraoral survival than restorations luted to dentin. Acid-etched Dicor restorations survived better than nonacid-etched restorations when luted to dentin preparations. Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted with resin composite exhibited more favorable survivor functions than restorations luted with glass ionomer or zinc phosphate agents.
Malament
K A
KA
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine and The Forsyth Institute, Boston, MA, USA. kenmalament@attglobal.net
Socransky
S S
SS
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000328:Adult; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry*; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000737:chemistry*; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005898:Glass / Q000737:chemistry*; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006047:Gold Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D011176:Post and Core Technique; D011336:Probability; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D016019:Survival Analysis; D015036:Zinc Phosphate Cement / Q000737:chemistry
D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; C047475:Dicor ceramic; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006047:Gold Alloys; D019279:Resin Cements; D003776:Dental Porcelain; D015036:Zinc Phosphate Cement