Literature DB >> 11218488

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

J Manhart1, A Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner, H Y Chen, R Hickel.   

Abstract

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.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11218488     DOI: 10.1007/s007840000086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  8 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of ceramic inlays.

Authors:  M Hayashi; N H F Wilson; C A Yeung; H V Worthington
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2002-12-21       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Ceramic Inlays: A Case Report.

Authors:  Swapnil Pawar; Vikas Lekhwani; Hina Ahmed; Pooja Agrawal; Prajakta Barapatre; Pragati Sharma; Saurabh Gupta; Bharat Gupta
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-09-11

3.  Bonding all-ceramic restorations with two resins cement techniques: a clinical report of three-year follow-up.

Authors:  Rodolfo Bruniera Anchieta; Eduardo Passos Rocha; Erika Oliveira de Almeida; Amilcar Chagas Freitas Junior; Ana Paula Martini
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2011-08

4.  Indirect composite restorations luted with two different procedures: A ten years follow up clinical trial.

Authors:  Nicola Barabanti; Alessandro Preti; Michele Vano; Giacomo Derchi; Francesco Mangani; Antonio Cerutti
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2015-02-01

5.  Efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: study protocol for the CECOIA randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hélène Fron Chabouis; Caroline Prot; Cyrille Fonteneau; Karim Nasr; Olivier Chabreron; Stéphane Cazier; Christian Moussally; Alexandre Gaucher; Inès Khabthani Ben Jaballah; Renaud Boyer; Jean-François Leforestier; Aurore Caumont-Prim; Florence Chemla; Louis Maman; Cathy Nabet; Jean-Pierre Attal
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Effect of adhesive luting on the fracture resistance of zirconia compared to that of composite resin and lithium disilicate glass ceramic.

Authors:  Myung-Jin Lim; Kwang-Won Lee
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2016-10-14

Review 7.  Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review.

Authors:  Rubeena Abdul Azeem; Nivedhitha Malli Sureshbabu
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb

8.  Influence of Preparation Reconstruction on the Compressive Strength of CAD/CAM Ceramic Inlays.

Authors:  Bruna Salamoni Sinhori; Luiz Clovis Cardoso Vieira; Luiz Narciso Baratieri
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2019-01-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.