Abstract
Objective: Despite the incremental build-up of resin composite restorations, their polymerization shrinkage during curing presents a serious problem. Indirect composite resin systems represent an alternative in overcoming some of the deficiencies of direct composite restorations. The hypothesis of the present study states that the clinical performance of restorations may be affected by different generation and application techniques. Study Design: Sixty restorations (20 DI system (Coltène/Whaledent AG, Altstätten, Switzerland) composite inlays, 20 Tescera ATL system (BISCO Inc. Schaumburg, Illinois, USA) composite inlays, and 20 direct composites) were applied to premolar teeth in 49 patients. Restorations were clinically evaluated by two examiners. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and X2 tests. Results: The Tescera ATL system performed significantly better than both direct composite restorations (p<0.001) and DI system (p<0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this 3-year clinical study, indirect resin restorations showed better scores than direct restorations. In addition, the Tescera ATL system was found to be more successful than the DI system and direct composite restorations. Key words:Composite, inlay, direct composite restorations, indirect composite restorations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
