head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2020, vol. 26, issue3
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2020263.3336
Published online: 28 September 2020

Original article

J of IMAB. 2020 Jul-Sep;26(3):3336-3340
Viktoria Petrova-Pashova1ORCID logo, Janet Kirilova1ORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Dimitar Kirov2ORCID logo,
1) Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
2) Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Aim of the study: There are only a few studies available that deal with the clinical behaviour of different types of composite inlays. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of three different groups of composite inlays.
Material and Methods: Twenty-five laboratory-fabricated composite inlays (Signum, Heraeus Kulzer), fifteen CAD/CAM inlays (Cerasmart, GC) with standard impression technique and 14 CAD/CAM inlays (Cerasmart, GC) with digital impression were placed in 43 patients by 2 experienced dentist. The first clinical evaluation was performed 1 year after placement of the restorations and used modified United States Public Health Services criteria.
Results: All of the indirect restorations were shown acceptable clinical results except one. Statistical analysis was performed with the One-way Anova test and Tukey HSD test between the groups. There was a significant difference between groups. Group 1 has shown a significant difference than Group 2 and 3.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that there is a significant difference in of clinical performance between laboratory and CAD/CAM composite inlays. CAD/CAM composite inlays were shown better result than laboratory-fabricated.

Keywords: CAD/CAM inlay/onlay, laboratory-fabricated inlay/onlay, clinical investigation,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 563 KB/
Please cite this article as: Petrova-Pashova V, Kirilova J, Kirov D. One year clinical investigation of laboratory-fabricated and CAD/CAM inlay/onlay. J of IMAB. 2020 Jul-Sep;26(3):3336-3340.
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2020263.3336

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Janet Kirilova, Assosiate Professor, DDS, PhD; Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Sofia; 1, St. Georgi Sofiiski Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: janetkirilova@gmail.com

1. Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater. 2016 May;32(5):687-94. [PubMed] [Crossref]
2. Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Özcan M. Survival Rateof Resin and Ceramic Inlays and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res.2016 Aug;95(9):985-94.[PubMed][Crossref]
3. Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Pradelle N, Seux D, et al. Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):384-389. [PubMed] [Crossref]
4. Blatz MB, Conejo J. The Current State of Chairside Digital Dentistry and Materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2019 Apr;63(2):175-197. [PubMed] [Crossref]
5. Moncada G, Silva F, Angel P, Oliveira OB Jr, Fresno MC, Cisternas P, et al. Evaluation of dental restorations: a comparative study between clinical and digital photographic assessments. Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):45-56. [PubMed] [Crossref]
6. Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-Aided Direct Ceramic Restorations: A 10-Year Prospective Clinical Study of Cerec CAD/CAM Inlays and Onlays. Int J Prosthodont.2002 Mar-Apr;15(2):122-8. [PubMed]
7. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2000 Aug;28(6):375-82. [PubMed] [Crossref]
8. Bessing C, Lundqvist P. A 1-year clinical examination of indirect composite resin inlays: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int. 1991 Feb;22(2):153-7. [PubMed]
9. Scheibenbogen A, Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. One-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Oct;80(4):410-6. [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 May-Jun;13(3):194-200. [PubMed]
11. Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Jan-Feb;21(1):53-9. [PubMed]
12. Barone A, Derchi G, Rossi A, Marconcini S, Covani U. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: A 3-year study. Quintessence Int.2008 Jan;39(1):65-71. [PubMed]
13. Derchi G, Marchio V, Borgia V, Özcan M, Giuca MR, Barone A. Twelve-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded indirect composite resin inlays. Quintessence Int.2019; 50(6):448-454. [PubMed] [Crossref]
14. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K. The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc.2005 Dec;136:1714-23. [PubMed] [Crossref]
15. Manhart J, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Chen HY, Hickel R. A 2-year clinical study of composite and ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig. 2000 Dec;4(4):192-8. [PubMed] [Crossref].

Received: 10 October 2019
Published online: 28 September 2020

back to Online Journal