The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 3 ( May, 2010 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results

Juliano Sartori Mendonça, José Roberto Pereira Lauris, Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro, Ranulfo Gianordoli Neto, Sérgio Lima Santiago, Ricardo Marins de Carvalho

Citation Information : Mendonça JS, Lauris JR, de Lima Navarro MF, Neto RG, Santiago SL, de Carvalho RM. Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (3):25-32.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-3-25

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; The Author(s).


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.

PDF Share
  1. The clinical evaluation of heat-treated composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 120(2): 177-81.
  2. A 1-year clinical examination of indirect composite resin inlays: a preliminary report. Quintessence Int. 1991; 22(2):153-7.
  3. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994; 52(6):368-76.
  4. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J 1995; 179(9):343-9.
  5. Clinical and semiquantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent. 1995; 23(6):329-38.
  6. Bond strengths to enamel and dentin with indirect and direct resin composites. Am J Dent. 1996; 9(3):105-8.
  7. A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. Quintessence Int. 1999; 30(3):163-8.
  8. Indirect composite preparation width and depth and tooth fracture resistance. Am J Dent. 1995; 8(1):15-9.
  9. The status of indirect restorative dental materials. Dental Uptade. 1998;25(1):23-8, 30-2, 34.
  10. Clinical evaluation of a heat-treated resin composite inlay: 3-year results. Am J Dent. 1992; 5(5):258-62.
  11. A one-year clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays. Scand J Dent Res. 1994; 102(3):186-92.
  12. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study. Quintessence Int. 2008; 39(1):65-71.
  13. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 2005; 33(6):499-507.
  14. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14(1):81-6.
  15. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2000; 28(6):375-82.
  16. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7(2):71-9.
  17. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J. 1980; 30(4):347-58.
  18. Acceptance program guidelines: Restorative Materials. Chicago: ADA; 1996. p.1-9.
  19. The effect of heat used as a secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. I. Diametral tensile strength, compressive strength, and marginal dimensional stability. Quintessence Int. 1987; 18(4):265-71.
  20. The effect of heat used as a secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. II. Wear, hardness, and color stability. Quintessence Int. 1987; 18(5):251-65.
  21. Effects of post-curing by heat on the mechanical properties of visible-light cured inlay composites. J Oral Rehabil. 1993; 20(6):605-14.
  22. Wear and marginal adaptation of composite resin inlays. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72(3):233-44.
  23. A four-year clinical evaluation of a highly filled hybrid resin composite in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2005; 7(4):343-9.
  24. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008; 9(4):26-33.
  25. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987; 66(11):1636-9.
  26. Increased wall-to-wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res. 1989; 68(1):48-50.
  27. A comparison of accuracy in seating and gap formation for three inlay/onlay techniques. Oper Dent. 1990; 15(4):129-35.
  28. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2006; 34(7):427-35.
  29. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006; 18(5):256-67.
  30. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19(6):613-7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.