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:

Abstract

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.