Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/ CAM inlays: Marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning T. Bortolotto & I. Onisor & I. Krejci Clin Oral Invest (2007) 11:35–43 Division of Cariology and Endodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Minimal intervention dentistry remineralization of early lesions reduction in cariogenic bacteria repair of defective restorations disease control minimum surgical intervention (MSI)

Resin composite improved esthetic qualities, strength, wear resistance and reduced water sorption Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage is still an unsolved problem

PURPOSE compare the marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite slot inlays fabricated with the Cerec 3 CAD/CAM and directly filled fine hybrid composite Class II restorations before and after thermal and mechanical fatigue testing 2 different bonding approach

M & M

M & M

M & M

M & M Intrapulpal pressure-25mmHg Finished with US instruments 35% phosphoric acid-20sec Clearfil SE bond C. inlay-F acid 60sec, silane Com. Inlay-Sandblasting, silane Composite filling- 1mm incremental,3-sited lighting tech

M & M Chewing machine-1.2 million Impression Epoxy replica Computer assisted quantitative margin analysis Inlay group-TC and CI interface were evaluated separately

Results

Results

Results

Enamel Fx on axial

Enamel Fx on cervical

Enamel Fx on occlusal

Discussion 1.2 million cycle - 5 year Marginal bevel C-factor “Wall flexibility” concept Rigidity of restorative material-Ceramic Enamel etching