Three-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 3-yr clinical performance of composite and ceramic inlays in posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 47 composite inlays (Tetric, Blend-a-Lux, Pertac) and 24 ceramic inlays (Empress) were placed by seven student operators under supervision of an experienced dentist. Clinical assessment of 58 inlays (81.7%) was performed after 3 yrs using amodified USPHS criteria and statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 100% of the ceramic inlays and 89% of the composite inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Three composite inlays failed during the first yr and one had to be replaced during the second evaluation period. All composite inlay failures were recorded on molars, revealing a significantly higher failure rate compared with premolars (Fisher's test, P = 0.041). Ceramic inlays revealed a significantly better "anatomic form of the surface" (P = 0.027) and "integrity of the restoration" (P = 0.035). Inlays in small cavities performed better for "marginal integrity" (P = 0.033) and "discoloration at the margin" (P = 0.038).

Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Objective long-term clinical data are necessary to assess the performance of modern posterior composites as direct and indirect restorations. PURPOSE: This prospective, long-term clinical trial evaluated direct and indirect composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in single or multisurface cavities and provided a survey on the 3-year results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Under the supervision of an experienced dentist, 9 dental students placed 88 composite restorations (Tetric, blend-a-lux, Pertac-Hybrid Unifil), 43 direct composite restorations, and 45 indirect inlays. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and in yearly intervals after placement by 2 other experienced dentists, using modified USPHS criteria. A third follow-up of 60 restorations took place within 33 to 36 months after placement. RESULTS: A total of 93% of indirect and 87% of direct restorations were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. During the third year, 1 direct restoration in a molar failed because of margin opening. Indirect inlays exhibited a significantly better anatomic form of the surface than direct composite restorations. Premolars revealed a significantly better marginal integrity and anatomic form of the surface than molars. Restorations in molars exhibited a significantly higher failure rate compared with premolars. CONCLUSION: Posterior composite restorations provided a satisfactory clinical performance over a 3-year period, even if placed by relatively inexperienced but supervised students.

A 2-year clinical study of composite and ceramic inlays.

Objective long-term clinical data are necessary to evaluate the performance of dental restorations. This prospective clinical trial evaluated composite and ceramic inlays for clinical acceptability as restorative materials in posterior teeth and provided 2-year results. The study involved 7 student operators placing 47 composite inlays (Tetric, blend-a-lux, Pertac) and 24 ceramic inlays (Empress) under the supervision of an experienced dentist. Clinical assessment of 56 inlays (78.9%) was performed after 2 years with modified USPHS criteria and statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. All the ceramic inlays and 90% of the composite inlays were considered clinically excellent or acceptable. During the first year 3 composite inlays failed and during the second evaluation period 1 had to be replaced. Ceramic inlays produced significantly better "anatomic form of the surface" (P = 0.038) and "integrity of the restoration" values (P = 0.043). Inlays in small cavities exhibited superior "marginal integrity" (P = 0.026) and "marginal discoloration" values (P = 0.034). Fisher's test revealed a significantly higher failure rate in molars than in bicuspids (P = 0.034). Posterior tooth-colored inlays exhibited a success rate of 100% for ceramic inlays and 90% for composite inlays even if placed by relatively inexperienced but supervised student operators.

Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Few long-term clinical studies have reported data of modern posterior composites as direct and indirect restorations. PURPOSE: This prospective, long-term clinical trial (1) evaluated direct and indirect composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in single or multisurface carious teeth and (2) provided a survey on the 2-year results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine dental students placed 88 composite restorations (Tetric, blend-a-lux, Pertac-Hybrid Unifil), 43 direct composite restorations and 45 indirect inlays, under the supervision of an experienced dentist. The first clinical evaluation was performed 11 to 13 months after placement by 2 other experienced dentists, using modified USPHS criteria. A second follow-up of 60 restorations took place within 20 to 26 months after placement. RESULTS: A total of 93% of indirect and 90% of direct composite restorations were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Two restorations (1 indirect composite inlay and 1 margin of a direct composite restoration) failed during the second year because of fracture. Indirect inlays demonstrated a significantly better "anatomic form of the surface" than direct composite restorations. Premolars revealed a significantly better margin integrity and postoperative symptoms than molars. CONCLUSION: Posterior composite restorations provided a satisfactory clinical performance over a 2-year period when placed by relatively inexperienced but supervised students.