One-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays in posterior teeth

Abstract

Statement of problem. There are only a few studies available that deal with the clinical behavior of composite and ceramic inlay systems as potential substitutes for amalgam restorations. Purpose. This prospective clinical trial evaluated composite and ceramic inlay systems for clinical acceptability as restorative materials in single or multisurface cavities of posterior teeth and provided 1-year results. Material and methods. Forty-seven composite inlays (Tetric, Blend-a-lux, Pertac) and 24 heat-pressed ceramic inlays (IPS Empress) were placed in 45 patients by 7 student operators under the supervision of an experienced dentist. The first clinical evaluation was performed 11 to 13 months after placement of the restorations and used modified United States Public Health Services criteria. Results. Satisfactory results over this period were found, as 100% of ceramic inlays and 94% of composite inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent and acceptable. Only 3 composite inlay restorations were scored delta (unacceptable). Two inlays exhibited secondary caries and 1 demonstrated loss of pulp vitality. For the criteria “anatomic form of the surface” and “marginal integrity,” ceramic inlays were significantly better than composite inlays. Conclusion. Posterior tooth-colored inlays provided acceptable and excellent clinical service, even if they are placed by relatively inexperienced student operators. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:410-6.)