Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram-TC) and indirect composite inlays (Targis-TG) after 12 months. Methods and Materials Seventy-six Class I and II restorations (44 direct and 32 indirect) were inserted in premolars and molars with carious lesions or deficient restorations in 30 healthy patients according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each restoration was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months according to the modified USPHS criteria for color match (CM), marginal discoloration (MD), secondary caries (SC), anatomic form (AF), surface texture (ST), marginal integrity (MI), and pulp sensitivity (PS). Data were analyzed by Fisher and McNemar Chisquare tests. Results No secondary caries and no pulpal sensitivity were observed after 12 months. However, significant changes in marginal discoloration (MD) criteria could be detected between baseline and one-year results for both materials (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, the differences between baseline and oneyear recall were statistically significant (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, Tetric Ceram (TC) showed results statistically superior to Targis (TG) in both observation periods (p<0.05). No statistically significant changes in color match (CM), anatomic form (AF), or surface texture (ST) appeared during the observation periods (p>0.05). Conclusions Direct resin composite restorations performed better than indirect composite inlays for marginal integrity, but all restorations were judged to be clinically acceptable. Clinical Significance Tetric Ceram direct restorations and Targis indirect inlays in posterior teeth provide satisfactory clinical performance and the comparison between them showed little difference after one year. Citation Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL, Carvalho RM. Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 May; 11(3):025-032. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue3-santiago.

Download Full-text

Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients

Clinical Oral Investigations ◽

10.1007/s00784-009-0355-4 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 31-38 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Roeland J. G. De Moor ◽

Inge G. Stassen ◽

Yoke van ’t Veldt ◽

Dries Torbeyns ◽

Geert M. G. Hommez

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Composite Restorations

Download Full-text

Clinical performance of indirect composite resin inlays/onlays in a dental school: observations up to 34 months

Acta Odontologica Scandinavica ◽

10.1080/000163599428805 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 57 (4) ◽

pp. 216-220 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jakob Leirskar ◽

Turid Henaug ◽

Nina Rygh Thoresen ◽

Håkon Nordbø ◽

Frithjof Ramm von der Fehr

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Dental School ◽

Indirect Composite

Download Full-text

Clinical Comparison of Bur- and Laser-prepared Minimally Invasive Occlusal Resin Composite Restorations: Two-year Follow-up

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/09-339-c ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 35 (5) ◽

pp. 500-507 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

A. R. Yazici ◽

M. Baseren ◽

J. Gorucu

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Clinical Comparison ◽

Prepared Composite

Clinical Relevance The laser could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive occlusal resin composite cavity preparations, as its clinical performance was similar to bur-prepared composite restorations.

Download Full-text

Clinical Evaluation of Indirect Composite Restorations at Baseline and 36 Months After Placement

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/09-133-c ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 156-164 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

W. Dukic ◽

O. L. Dukic ◽

S. Milardovic ◽

B. Delija

Keyword(s):

Clinical Evaluation ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Good Choice ◽

Hybrid Resin ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Clinical Difference ◽

Indirect Composite

Clinical Relevance Indirect resin composite restorations represent a good choice for the therapy of severely damaged teeth. There is no clinical difference between Ormocer and nano-hybrid resin composite after 36 months.

Download Full-text

Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review

Australian Dental Journal ◽

10.1111/adj.12252 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 60 (4) ◽

pp. 520-527 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

KV Nguyen ◽

C Sathorn ◽

RH Wong ◽

MF Burrow

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Composite Restorations

Download Full-text

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/12-160-c ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (2) ◽

pp. E31-E41 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

AR Cetin ◽

N Unlu ◽

N Cobanoglu

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

United States Public Health ◽

The United States ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

Indirect Composite ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Clinical Conditions ◽

Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Aim: To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after five years. Materials and Methods: A total of 108 cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT [FSXT], Tetric Evo Ceram [TEC], AELITE Aesthetic [AA]) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia [E] and Tescera ATL [TATL]). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and five years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher exact and McNemar χ2 tests. Results: At baseline, 4% (five) of the restored teeth presented postoperative sensitivity; however, only one of them (a member of the E group) required canal treatment and replacement after two years. At the five-year evaluation, all restorations were retained, with Alpha ratings at 100%. Only one tooth (in the TEC group) required replacement after three years due to secondary caries. Color match, surface texture, and marginal integrity were predominantly scored as Alpha after five years for all groups. After that time, marginal discoloration was scored as Alpha in 64% of AE restorations, 70% of TATL restorations, 73% of E restorations, and 87% of FSXT restorations. There were no Charlie scores recorded for any of the restorative systems. Conclusions: Under controlled clinical conditions, indirect composite resin inlays and direct composite resin restorations exhibited an annual failure rate of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively, after five years. Therefore, the investigated materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and no significant differences were found among them.

Download Full-text