 |
| Title |
There Is No Significant Difference Between The Longevity Of A Directly Placed, Fine Particle Hybrid (Filtek Z250) Resin Composite And Ceramic Inlays When Restoring Posterior Teeth |
| Clinical Question |
In a patient needing a posterior tooth restoration, does restoring the tooth with directly placed resin composite increase the longevity of the restoration more effectively than restoring the tooth with ceramic inlays? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
There is no significant difference between the longevity of a directly placed, fine particle hybrid (Filtek Z250) resin composite and ceramic inlays when restoring posterior teeth. (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) 19544814 | Lange/2009 | 246 ceramic inlays and 130 composite restorations | Non randomized Clinical Comparison | | Key results | Ceramic inlays revealed better clinical results than a directly placed, fine particle hybrid (Filtek Z250) composite restoration for marginal adaptation, color match, and anatomic form, but had similar results for survival probability. Survival probability of ceramic inlays was 94% and 93% for composite restorations. The log rank test showed no significant difference between the group ceramic and composite groups. (p=0.3901) | |
| Evidence Search |
#13 Search "Inlays"[Mesh]#9 Search "Composite Resins"[Mesh]#4 Search "Ceramics"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The study design was a nonrandomized clinical comparison. Groups were similar at the start, and there was a >80% completion rate. Groups were treated the same. There was adequate follow-up. This study was not double-blinded. The compliance was adequate and recall bias was unlikely. There were no competing interests. |
| Applicability |
Subjects could be representatives of patients in a typical dental office, and treatment is also feasible in this setting. Patient’s potential benefits are that with ceramic inlays, they will have better results with marginal adaptation, color match, and anatomic form. However, in terms of survival probability of ceramic inlays and directly placed resin composite, patients would have similar results and no one material is better than the other material. In addition, when patients prefer tooth colored restorations, both ceramic inlays and the directly placed, fine particle hybrid Filtek Z250 resin composite would give better esthetic results than amalgam restorations. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Resin composite, ceramic inlays, longevity
|
| ID# |
761 |
| Date of submission: |
04/14/2011 |
| E-mail |
kangs@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Shinyoung Kang |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
H. Ralph Rawls, PhD |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
RAWLS@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 Rodolfo Cereceres, Bethany Flanders, Maxim Mossman (San Antonio , TX) on 01/06/2014
A systematic review conducted in 2013 supported the evidence that there was no difference between longevity of both materials but there was difference in the physical properties of the respective materials. | |
|
|
