Clinical Longevity of Indirect Composite Resin Inlays and Onlays: An Up to 9-Year Prospective Study

Abstract Objective This clinical study evaluated the clinical performance of composite resin inlays and onlays over 9 years. Materials and Methods Sixty composite resin inlays and onlays were placed in 32 patients, aged 20 to 60 years, by a single operator using the same clinical procedure. The restorations were examined for fracture rate; esthetics; and patient acceptance and marginal integrity, including caries, marginal discoloration, tooth integrity, and surface texture. All restorations were evaluated at the time of placement and 3, 6, and 9 years after placement by using the modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. Results At the 3-year follow-up, an Alpha score was given to 88.4% of restorations, while a Bravo score was given to the remaining 11.6%. There was not any failure. At the 6-year follow-up, the success rate of the restorations was 100% without failure. None of the restorations was scored with Delta (D). An Alpha score was given to 60% of the restorations, a Bravo score was assigned to 35%, and a Charlie score was 5% of the restorations. Overall, the success rate of the restorations at 9-year follow-up was 85% and the failure rate was 15%. An Alpha score was given to 15% of the restorations, a Bravo score was given to 50%, a Charlie score was assigned to 20%, and a D score was given to 15% of the restorations. Conclusion Indirect resin composite inlays and onlays showed acceptable long-term clinical results. The success rate of the restorations at 9-year follow-up was 85% and the failure rate was 15%.

[1]  M. Özcan,et al.  Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2020, Journal of clinical medicine.

[2]  B. Yaşa,et al.  Two-year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: A randomized controlled clinical trial. , 2019, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[3]  M. Dard,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Three Types of CAD/CAM Inlay/ Onlay Materials After 1-Year Clinical Follow Up. , 2019, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[4]  M. Özcan,et al.  Twelve-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded indirect composite resin inlays. , 2019, Quintessence International.

[5]  M. Özcan,et al.  Clinical performance of indirect composite onlays and overlays: 2-year follow up , 2016 .

[6]  V. Thompson,et al.  A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[7]  J. Attal,et al.  Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[8]  M. Roos,et al.  The impact of in vitro aging on the mechanical and optical properties of indirect veneering composite resins. , 2011, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  Subir Banerji,et al.  Aesthetic resin onlay restorations: 'rationale and methods'. , 2011, Dental update.

[10]  Nandini Suresh Indirect resin composites , 2010, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[11]  W. Dukić,et al.  Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

[12]  Aristidis Galiatsatos,et al.  Six-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays. , 2008, Quintessence international.

[13]  L. Correr-Sobrinho,et al.  The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations , 2008, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[14]  P. Hörsted-Bindslev,et al.  A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. , 2006, Quintessence International.

[15]  Dennis J Fasbinder,et al.  The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. , 2005, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[16]  G. Schmalz,et al.  Reprint of Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[17]  G. Ryge,et al.  Reprint of Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[18]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  The effect of six years of water storage on resin composite bonding to human dentin. , 2004, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[19]  Pascal Magne,et al.  Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. , 2003, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[20]  G. Vanherle,et al.  Four-year Water Degradation of Total-etch Adhesives Bonded to Dentin , 2003, Journal of dental research.

[21]  F. R. von der Fehr,et al.  A four to six years follow-up of indirect resin composite inlays/onlays , 2003, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[22]  H. Worthington,et al.  Systematic review of ceramic inlays , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[23]  H. Matsumura,et al.  Comparative evaluation of secondary heat treatment and a high intensity light source for the improvement of properties of prosthetic composites. , 2000, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[24]  R. Hickel,et al.  Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry (Print).

[25]  P. Chalifoux Treatment considerations for posterior laboratory-fabricated composite resin restorations. , 1998, Practical periodontics and aesthetic dentistry : PPAD.

[26]  K F Leinfelder,et al.  New developments in resin restorative systems. , 1997, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[27]  M. Molin,et al.  A 3-year clinical follow-up study of a ceramic (Optec) inlay system. , 1996, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[28]  K F Leinfelder,et al.  Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. , 1994, Quintessence international.

[29]  A. J. Goldberg,et al.  Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years. , 1992, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[30]  C. Lloyd,et al.  The strength of dental ceramics. , 1991, E -journal of dentistry.

[31]  A. Feilzer,et al.  Increased Wall-to-Wall Curing Contraction in Thin Bonded Resin Layers , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[32]  V. Qvist,et al.  Replica patterns on composite restorations performed in vivo with different acid-etch restorative procedures. , 1985, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[33]  A. J. Goldberg,et al.  Clinical Evaluation Methods for Posterior Composite Restorations , 1984, Journal of dental research.

[34]  F. Lutz,et al.  The prevention of microleakage and achievement of optimal marginal adaptation. , 1977, The Journal of preventive dentistry.

[35]  G Ryge,et al.  Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. , 1973, Journal of the American Dental Association.