Ayse T Tunac1, Esra U Celik2, Bilal Yasa2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) resin composite inlay restorations in comparison with direct resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 44 patients, 120 class II (mesio-occlusal/disto-occlusal) cavities were randomly assigned into two groups; CAD/CAM resin composite inlay group (Lava Ultimate), direct resin composite group (Clearfil Majesty Posterior). Clinical evaluations were performed after 1 week, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years according to the FDI criteria. The data were analyzed using Friedman's ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = .05). RESULTS: In 41 patients, 114 restorations were evaluated at the second year (recall rate 93.2%). All restorations were ideal or clinically acceptable. At the first year, considering all criteria, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, there was a significant difference in terms of surface luster at second year, in favor of inlay restorations (P = .015). The marginal staining of resin composites increased after 2 years (P = .046), but there was no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Except the surface luster, 2-year clinical performance of CAD/CAM resin composite inlay restorations was found similar to direct resin composite restorations according to FDI criteria CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of CAD/CAM resin composite inlays was acceptable in class II cavities subsequent to 2-year evaluation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) resin composite inlay restorations in comparison with direct resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 44 patients, 120 class II (mesio-occlusal/disto-occlusal) cavities were randomly assigned into two groups; CAD/CAM resin composite inlay group (Lava Ultimate), direct resin composite group (Clearfil Majesty Posterior). Clinical evaluations were performed after 1 week, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years according to the FDI criteria. The data were analyzed using Friedman's ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = .05). RESULTS: In 41 patients, 114 restorations were evaluated at the second year (recall rate 93.2%). All restorations were ideal or clinically acceptable. At the first year, considering all criteria, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, there was a significant difference in terms of surface luster at second year, in favor of inlay restorations (P = .015). The marginal staining of resin composites increased after 2 years (P = .046), but there was no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Except the surface luster, 2-year clinical performance of CAD/CAM resin composite inlay restorations was found similar to direct resin composite restorations according to FDI criteria CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of CAD/CAM resin composite inlays was acceptable in class II cavities subsequent to 2-year evaluation.
Authors: Aleksandra Skorulska; Paweł Piszko; Zbigniew Rybak; Maria Szymonowicz; Maciej Dobrzyński Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.623