OBJECTIVES: This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the longevity of composite resin inlays in single- or multi-surface cavities up to 4 years. METHODS:21 dental students placed 75 Artglass and 80 Charisma composite resin inlays in class I and II cavities in posterior teeth (89 adult patients) luted with dual-curing resin cements. Clinical evaluation was performed up to 4 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: 87.2% of Artglass and 76.6% of Charisma inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Up to the 4-year recall 5 Artglass and 11 Charisma inlays failed mainly because of postoperative symptoms, bulk fracture, and loss of marginal integrity. No significant differences between both composite resin materials could be detected at 4 years for all clinical criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, p>0.05). The comparison of restoration performance with time yielded a significant increase in marginal discolouration and postoperative symptoms (p<0.05), deterioration of surface texture quality, marginal and restoration integrity (p<0.05) for both inlay systems. However, the changes were mainly effects of scoring shifts from alfa to bravo. Small inlays compared to large inlays and premolar restorations compared to molar restorations showed significant better outcome for some of the tested clinical parameters for the Artglass inlays (p<0.05). For Charisma inlays no such influences were revealed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of Artglass and Charisma composite resin inlays exhibited an annual failure rate of 3.2% and 5.9% that is within the range of published data. Within the limitations of this study indirect composite inlays are a competitive restorative procedure in stress-bearing preparations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the longevity of composite resin inlays in single- or multi-surface cavities up to 4 years. METHODS: 21 dental students placed 75 Artglass and 80 Charisma composite resin inlays in class I and II cavities in posterior teeth (89 adult patients) luted with dual-curing resin cements. Clinical evaluation was performed up to 4 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: 87.2% of Artglass and 76.6% of Charisma inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Up to the 4-year recall 5 Artglass and 11 Charisma inlays failed mainly because of postoperative symptoms, bulk fracture, and loss of marginal integrity. No significant differences between both composite resin materials could be detected at 4 years for all clinical criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, p>0.05). The comparison of restoration performance with time yielded a significant increase in marginal discolouration and postoperative symptoms (p<0.05), deterioration of surface texture quality, marginal and restoration integrity (p<0.05) for both inlay systems. However, the changes were mainly effects of scoring shifts from alfa to bravo. Small inlays compared to large inlays and premolar restorations compared to molar restorations showed significant better outcome for some of the tested clinical parameters for the Artglass inlays (p<0.05). For Charisma inlays no such influences were revealed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of Artglass and Charisma composite resin inlays exhibited an annual failure rate of 3.2% and 5.9% that is within the range of published data. Within the limitations of this study indirect composite inlays are a competitive restorative procedure in stress-bearing preparations.