ISSN: 0975-833X: Research Article
ISSN: 0975-833X: Research Article
ISSN: 0975-833X: Research Article
ISSN: 0975-833X
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Article History: Aim: The aim of this clinical practice guideline is to help dental
Received 08th February, 2017 Received in revised form practitioners make decisions regarding appropriate materials
10th March, 2017 Accepted 29th April, 2017 and techniques for onlay restorations.
Published online 23rd May, 2017 Background: Onlay restorations are an excellent choice for the
clinicians to restore structurally compromised posterior teeth.
Key words: These restorations are bonded directly to the tooth using resin
Collection Development of Libraries, Evaluative, Comparative. cement and can actually increase the strength of a tooth by up
to 75%. Many techniques have been suggested for the
preparation of onlays. Advances in adhesive system and
esthetic dental materials such as composite resins and
ceramics have enabled clinicians to use conservative
preparations to place restorations that also reinforce the
remaining tooth structures. In addition, these restorations
satisfy the increasing patient expectations for a natural or
enhanced appearance. More technologically developed
systems with fiber - reinforced materials which can be placed in
a single - visit provides optimism for the future application of
these restorations to the daily clinical practice.
Copyright©2017, Dr. Rubeena. A. Azeem and Dr. Nivedhitha Malli Sureshbabu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Dr. Rubeena. A. Azeem and Dr. Nivedhitha Malli Sureshbabu. 2017. “Onlay preparation techniques - clinical practice guidelines”,
International Journal of Current Research, 9, (05), 50646-50650.
Overview of various onlay preparation ● Make impressions and pour casts of the prepared onlay.
(Fig. 6)
techniques Tooth preparation for the onlay
● Try the castings on the tooth, adjust the proximal
contacts, evaluate occlusal relationship, and cement the
casting
casting. Use one or two 5/8 inch “metal center” fine
This technique was given by Dr. Jack G. Seymour in 1987.
Most posterior teeth can be restored garnets to finish the exposed margins. After the
conservatively with a type
II gold by using a minimal number of instruments in an complete set of the cement, review the
occlusal surface
organized manner. The instruments needed are No. 1157, again (Seymour, 1987).
No. 17OL, and No. 282-010 carbide burs and a ½ inch fine
emery
disk with No. 80-7-14 and No. 10-7-14 trimmers (Seymour, gingival marginal
1987).
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6
To
ot
h
pr
ep
ar
ati
on
fo
r
est
he
tic
on
la
y
Fig. 7.
cavosurface margin is more than 50% up the incline of the finishing bur to remove any adhesive that may have flowed
cusp. The cavosurface margin can extend onto these surfaces. After preparation, an impression is
up to 75% up the
cuspal incline of a nonworking cusp before overlaying of the obtained using an accurate re-pourable material. This is sent
cusp is considered. Studies have investigated the use of bonded to the laboratory with any additional models, records, or
inlay or onlay restorations for this area, but no clinical information needed to fabricate the restoration. The level of
consensus on when to remove a cusp has been reached. esthetics achieved with this restoration is directly proportional
Because these restorations reinforce the remaining tooth to the level of communication between
the clinician and
structure, the traditional guidelines for overlaying a cusp as in laboratory technician. Consequently, the color prescription
cast gold onlays have been modified. must contain the occlusal base shade of the restoration, the
gradient of shade from central fossa to cavosurface margin,
the degree and color of the desired pit and fissure stains, and
any
maverick highlights present. The shade is taken before
preparation to avoid the misleading effects produced in a
desiccated tooth. Once this diagnostic information has been
obtained, a direct provisional restoration is placed while the
definitive restorations are fabricated in the laboratory.
ecently, short fiber reinforced composite resin was introduced CAD-CAM approach
as a dental restorative composite resin. These direct composite
restorations are now intended to be used in high stress bearing The computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufac-
areas especially in molars. The results of the laboratory turing (CAD-CAM) approach is a valid procedure for
mechanical tests revealed substantial improvements in the load fabricating esthetic inlays or onlays. Many of the ceramic
bearing capacity, the flexural strength and fracture toughness of inlays or onlays ordered by dentists today are fabricated in the
dental composite resin reinforced with short E glass fiber laboratory using milling machines. The two machines
available
fillers in comparison with conventional particulate filler in the marketplace today are the CEREC (Sirona Dental
composite resin. The short fiber composite resin has shown Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina) and the E4D (D4D
control of the polymerization shrinkage stress by fiber Technologies, Richardson, Texas). The quality of the
orientation and, thus, marginal micro leakage was reduced restorations that can be fabricated with these milling machines
compared with conventional particulate filler composite resins in the dental office today is as good as that of
laboratory-
(Garoushi, 2012; Garoushi,f, 2007 and Garoushi, 2008). For fabricated indirect resin or ceramic restorations with respect to
direct composite restorations, quadrant isolation is done using fit and function. Both approaches depend on the commitment
rubber dam sheet. The tooth to be restored is cleaned with and skill of the operator. This can be the dentist or a dental
pumice-water slurry in a rubber cup to remove salivary pellicle auxiliary who actually does the design and operates the
and any remaining dental plaque. milling equipment.
Fig. 9 – 14.
REFERENCES
Christensen, G.J. 2012. The case for onlays versus tooth-
colored crowns. The Journal of the American Dental
Association. 2012 Oct 1;143(10):1141–4.
Frankenberger, R., Petschelt, A., Krämer, N. 2000. Leucite-
reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years.
Part I: Clinical behavior, Oper Dent 25:459-465.
50650 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 9, Issue, 05, pp.50646-50650, May, 2017
Garoushi, S., Vallittu, P.K., Lassila, L.V.J. 2007. Short glass Otto, T., De Nisco, S. 2002. Computer-aided direct ceramic
fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter restorations: 10-year prospective clinical study of CEREC
penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater. 2007 CAD/CAM inlays and onlays, Int J Prosthodont 15:122-
Nov;23(11):1356–62. 128.
Garoushi, S., Vallittu, P.K., Watts, D.C., Lassila, L.V.J. Paul, S.J., Schärer, P. 1997. The dual bonding technique: a
Polymerization shrinkage of experimental short glass fiber-
modified method to improve adhesive luting procedures,
reinforced composite with semi-inter penetrating polymer
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:536-545.
network matrix. Dent Mater. 2008 Feb;24(2):211–5.
Schulte, A.G., Vocker, A., Reinhardt, R. 2005. Longevity of
Garoushi, S., Mangoush, E., Vallittu, M., & Lassila, L. Short
ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light curing
Fiber Reinforced Composite: a New Alternative for Direct
composite resin, J Dent 33:433-442.
Onlay Restorations. The Open Dentistry Journal 2013; 7:
Seymour, J.G. 1987. A simplified technique for the tooth
181–185.
preparation of onlay castings. J Prosthet Dent.,
Jackson, R. 1999. Indirect resin inlay and onlay restorations: a
Jan;57(1):9–11.
comprehensive clinical overview, Pract Periodontics
Swift, E.J. 2001. Processed Composites. Journal of Esthetic
Aesthet Dent 11(8):891-900.
and Restorative Dentistry. Sep 1;13(5):284–95.
Jackson, R.D. 1994. Esthetic inlays and onlays. Curr Opin
Van Dijken, J.W.V. 2000. Direct resin composite inlays or
Cosmet Dent. 30–9. onlays: an 11 year follow-up, J Dent 28(5):299-306.
Kramer, N., Frankenberger, R. 2005. Clinical performance of Wassell, R.W., Walls, A.W., McCabe, J.F. 2000. Direct
bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays composite inlays versus conventional composite
after eight years, Dent Mater 21(3):262-271. restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent., 28:375-82.
Kramer, N., Taschner, M., Lohbauer, U., et al. 2008. Totally Wendt, S.L., Leinfelder, K.F. 1992. Clinical evaluation of a
bonded Ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years, J Adhes heat-treated resin composite inlay: 3-year results. Am J
Dent. 10:307-314. Dent. Oct;5(5):258–62.
Lehner, C., Studer, S., Brodbeck, U., Scharer, P. 1998. Six- year
clinical results of leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and
onlays, Acta Medica Dentistry Switzerland 3:137-146, 1998.
*******
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: