Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 202-208
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735420
Original Article

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

Aristidis Galiatsatos 
1   Division of Dental Technology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece
,
Panagiotis Galiatsatos
2   School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
,
Dimitra Bergou
3   Private Practice, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

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%.

Keywords

adhesion - clinical longevity - esthetics - indirect composite - inlay - marginal discoloration - onlay - restorative dentistry


Publication History

Article published online:
08 November 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Molin M, Karlsson S. A 3-year clinical follow-up study of a ceramic (Optec) inlay system. Acta Odontol Scand 1996; 54 (03) 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hayashi M, Wilson NHF, Yeung CA, Worthington HV. Systematic review of ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7 (01) 8-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Messer PF, Piddock V, Lloyd CH. The strength of dental ceramics. J Dent 1991; 19 (01) 51-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Galiatsatos AA, Bergou D. Six-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays. Quintessence Int 2008; 39 (05) 407-412
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Magne P, Belser UC. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. J Periodont Rest Dent 2003; 23 (06) 543-555
    PubMed
  • 6 Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (12) 1209-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Quagliatto PS, Soares CJ. The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2008; 12 (01) 53-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leinfelder KF. New developments in resin restorative systems. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128 (05) 573-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chalifoux PR. Treatment considerations for posterior laboratory-fabricated composite resin restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998; 10 (08) 969-978, quiz 980
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nandini S. Indirect resin composites. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13 (04) 184-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K. The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136 (12) 1714-1723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28 (03) 227-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aslan YU, Coskun E, Ozkan Y, Dard M. Clinical evaluation of three types of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay materials after 1-year clinical follow-up. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019; 27 (03) 131-140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973; 87 (02) 369-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9 (04) 215-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Freilich MA, Goldberg AJ, Gilpatrick RO, Simonsen RJ. Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years. Dent Mater 1992; 8 (01) 60-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. USPHS Publication #790–2441971. San Francisco: US Government Printing Office; Doi: DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84 (03) 289-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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 (06) 448-454
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goldberg AJ, Rydinge E, Santucci EA, Racz WB. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 1984; 63 (12) 1387-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dukic W, Dukic OL, Milardovic S, Delija B. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent 2010; 35 (02) 156-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ozsoy A, Kusdemir M, Ozturk-Bozlurt F. Toz Akalin T, Ozcan M. Clinical performance of indirect composite onlays and overlays: 2-year follow-up. J Adhes Sci Technol 2016; 30 (16) 1808-1818
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Stawarczyk B, Egli R, Roos M, Ozcan M, Hämmerle CH. The impact of in vitro aging on the mechanical and optical properties of indirect veneering composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106 (06) 386-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Comparative evaluation of secondary heat treatment and a high intensity light source for the improvement of properties of prosthetic composites. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27 (04) 288-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M, Molinero-Mourelle P, Joda T. 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. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (07) 2107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Panchal N, Mehta SB, Banerji S, Millar BJ. Aesthetic resin onlay restorations: ‘rationale and methods’. Dent Update 2011; 38 (08) 535-536 539, 542–544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Increased wall-to-wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res 1989; 68 (01) 48-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kawai K, Isenberg BP, Leinfelder KF. Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. Quintessence Int 1994; 25 (01) 53-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lüescher B, Lutz F, McDermott T, Mühlemann HR. The prevention of microleakage and achievement of optimal marginal adaptation. J Prev Dent 1977; 4 (02) 16-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Qvist V, Qvist J. Replica patterns on composite restorations performed in vivo with different acid-etch restorative procedures. Scand J Dent Res 1985; 93 (04) 360-370
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y. et al. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res 2003; 82 (02) 136-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Petschelt A. The effect of six years of water storage on resin composite bonding to human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004; 69 (01) 25-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Leirskar J, Nordbø H, Thoresen NR, Henaug T, von der Fehr FR. A four to six years follow-up of indirect resin composite inlays/onlays. Acta Odontol Scand 2003; 61 (04) 247-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int 2006; 37 (02) 139-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tunac AT, Celik EU, Yasa B. Two-year performance of CAD/CAM fabricated resin composite inlay restorations: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019; 31 (06) 627-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar