One-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays in posterior teeth.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There are only a few studies available that deal with the clinical behavior of composite and ceramic inlay systems as potential substitutes for amalgam restorations. PURPOSE: This prospective clinical trial evaluated composite and ceramic inlay systems for clinical acceptability as restorative materials in single or multisurface cavities of posterior teeth and provided 1-year results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven composite inlays (Tetric, Blend-a-lux, Pertac) and 24 heat-pressed ceramic inlays (IPS Empress) were placed in 45 patients by 7 student operators under the supervision of an experienced dentist. The first clinical evaluation was performed 11 to 13 months after placement of the restorations and used modified United States Public Health Services criteria. RESULTS: Satisfactory results over this period were found, as 100% of ceramic inlays and 94% of composite inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent and acceptable. Only 3 composite inlay restorations were scored delta (unacceptable). Two inlays exhibited secondary caries and 1 demonstrated loss of pulp vitality. For the criteria "anatomic form of the surface" and "marginal integrity," ceramic inlays were significantly better than composite inlays. CONCLUSION: Posterior tooth-colored inlays provided acceptable and excellent clinical service, even if they are placed by relatively inexperienced student operators.

One-year clinical evaluation of composite fillings and inlays in posterior teeth.

In the course of a prospectively designed long-term clinical trial, composite fillings and inlays were evaluated for clinical acceptability as restorative materials in one, two or more surface cavities of posterior teeth over a 1-year period. In 45 patients, 88 restorations were placed by nine student operators, under the supervision of an experienced dentist, to compare the two half sides using the composite resins Tetric (Vivadent), blend-a-lux (Blend-a-med), and Pertac-Hybrid Unifil (Espe). The first clinical follow-up check took place within a time period of 11-13 months after placement of the restorations using modified USPHS criteria. The interpretation of the clinical criteria showed satisfactory results over this time period: more than 85% of the inlays and direct fillings were rated "alpha" or "bravo", using the parameters of assessment defined in this study. Only three restorations (two fillings, one inlay), all in molars, were rated "delta", i.e., unacceptable. The reasons for their replacement were marginal opening, secondary caries, and loss of sensitivity. For the criteria "surface texture", "anatomical form of the surface", and "occlusion", composite inlays were significantly better than composite fillings. These results indicate that posterior composite restorations provide acceptable and excellent clinical service, even if they are placed by relatively inexperienced student operators.