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

Dukić, Walter; Dukić, Olga Lulić

doi:10.2341/09-133-c

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This technique simplifies the production of indirect restorations and Even though there is no report on the comparison of CAD/CAM resin composite partial crowns and direct posterior resin composite restorations, there are many clinical studies comparing direct and indirect resin composite restorations that found no differences between the clinical success of these restorations. [22][23][24] In accordance with our results, Dukic et al 25 term clinical trials. [14][15][16] In this study, no reduction was observed in any criteria throughout the whole evaluation periods in CAD/CAM group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Two‐year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Tunaç

Çelik

Yaşa

2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Two‐year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Tunaç

Çelik

Yaşa

2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are in line with previous reports of success rates of 80 -100% for composite inlays following similar observation periods (12-14) ( Table 4). Previous studies showed that the physical and mechanical properties of resin composites are greatly affected by the degree of conversion (DC) in the cross-linked polymeric system (15).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

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

Ozakar-Ilday

Zorba²,

Yıldız³

et al. 2013

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Ceramic ones are resistant to compressive forces but are susceptible to tensile stresses and more prone to fracture then are composite onlays [3,16,17]. Nine clinical studies have evaluated ceramic and composite materials for onlays [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Yet, we can draw no definite conclusions on the best material for onlay from these studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Critical Review and Evaluation of Composite/Ceramic Onlaysversus Crowns

Nikolopoulou¹,

Loukidis

2014

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this comprehensive review was to evaluate and identify the performance of composite/ceramic onlays versus crowns. The strength of the evidence is based on published trials, systematic reviews and observational studies. Methods:The dental literature was reviewed for controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies from 1966 to 2013. Longevity of onlay or crown is dependent upon many different factors, including material, patient-and dentist-related. Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries fractures, marginal deficiencies, wear and postoperative sensitivity.Minimally invasive dentistry, in cases in which it is appropriate, is a concept that preserves dentition, supports structures and involves low cost therapy.

show abstract

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

Cited by 35 publications

References 31 publications

Two‐year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Two‐year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial

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

Critical Review and Evaluation of Composite/Ceramic Onlaysversus Crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About