RESUMO
Objective @#To compare the wear of Ceramage and IPS e.max Press offering foundation for nonmetallic materials selection in clinical. @*Methods @#20 class I cavities were prepared in the approximal flattened sides of the extracted human maxillary first molars. The cavities were divided into 2 groups randomly, and then restored with Ceramage or IPS e.max Press. Inlays were prepared according to the manufactures’ instructions with indirect methods and cemented with Varolink N. The non-wear extracted maxillary third molars were used as antagonistic enamel cusps after standardized prepared. After the self-made wear-testing device concluded 200,000 cycles under a load of 20 N, the wear depth of specimens and antagonistic enamel cusps was assessed by Kavo PREP assistant.@*Results @# The wear in Ceramage group was (298.30 ± 40.02) μm, while the wear of normal enamel was (206.60 ± 49.17) μm. The wear in IPS e.max Press group was (212.90 ± 61.21) μm, while the wear of normal enamel was (217.00 ± 25.10) μm. The wear of IPS e.max Press inlays was higher than Ceramage inlays (P < 0.05). Ceramage inlays showed higher wear than normal enamel (P < 0.05), while IPS e.max Press inlays was not statistically different from the normal enamel (P > 0.05). @*Conclusions @#Ceramage has more wear than IPS e.max Press. Ceramage shows higher wear compared with normal enamel, while IPS e.max Press has lower antagonistic war compared with normal enamel.