 |
| Title |
Similar Clinical Performance Of Direct Resin Composite Restorations And Indirect Composite Inlays |
| Clinical Question |
Do direct resin composite restorations perform better than indirect composite inlays? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Direct resin composite restorations showed better marginal integrity than indirect composite inlays after one year, however the clinical performance of the two were similar after 5 years. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 20461321 | Medonca/2010 | 30 Healthy Patients | Cohort | | Key results | Direct resin composites and indirect composite inlays were compared after one year in 30 patients. There was no statistical difference between the restorations in color match, anatomic form, and surface texture. The only statistically significant difference was in the marginal integrity, but both were clinically acceptable. | | #2) 10856800 | Wassell/2000 | 100 Restorations | Cohort | | Key results | Direct composite inlays and conventional composite restorations were looked at over a 5 year period. There was no significant difference between the two restorations, and they were both assessed to be clinically acceptable. | |
| Evidence Search |
Limits: Humans, English. "Inlays"[Mesh]) AND "Composite Resins"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The study design used was a cohort, in which 30 healthy patients received restorations and were evaluated after 1 year. The completion rate with this was study was very high, but adequate follow up was not upheld. A larger sample size and longer length of study would make the evidence stronger. The second study was a cohort as well, where 100 restorations were evaluated over a 5 year period. The completion rate wasn’t very high, but adequate follow up was upheld. |
| Applicability |
Patients requiring composite restorations. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
inlays, composite resins
|
| ID# |
862 |
| Date of submission: |
04/08/2011 Revised: 09/23/2011 |
| E-mail |
hassana@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Amir Hassan |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Rita Renee Parma, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
PARMA@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Megan Laughinghouse, Stephen Lambert (San Antonio, TX) on 10/03/2014
A Pubmed search was conducted and found a recent cohort study to examine the clinical performance of direct composite restorations and two different indirect composite inlays in 49 patients: Ozakar-Ilday 2013 PMID: 23524423. It was found that within a 3-year period, indirect inlays were found to perform significantly better in marginal integrity, but no significant differences with restoration integrity. In the short term, both direct and indirect compare similarly, but indirect inlays perform better in the long term. | |
|
|
