CLINICAL COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CLASS II CERAMIC AND COMPOSITE INLAYS: A 12- MONTH PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background: Indirect restorations have taken the center stage in the restoration of the posterior teeth because they
have better mechanical and aesthetic perspectives. Nevertheless, the relative clinical effectiveness of ceramic and
composite inlays has not been well defined yet.
Materials and Methods: Thirty patients who had Class II cavities in permanent molars were randomly selected to
either have ceramic inlays (IPS e.max lithium disilicate, n=15) or composite inlays (Clearfil Photo Core, n=15). Dualcure resin cement was used to adhesively cement all of the restorations. Baseline, 6, 9, and 12 months clinical
assessment was conducted in US PHS criteria measuring surface texture, marginal discoloration, secondary caries and marginal adaptation. To analyze the statistical data, Chi-square and Fisher tests (alpha=0.05) have been used.
Results: Ceramic inlays had 86.7% Alpha ratings of marginal adaptation at 12 months, whereas the composite inlays
had 60% marginal adaptation. All parameters evaluated in the groups did not statistically differ between the groups
(p>0.05). Nevertheless, composite inlays demonstrated considerable intra-group wear over time in surface texture
(p≤0.05), secondary caries (p≤0.05), and marginal adaptation (p≤0.05) but ceramic inlays did not.
Conclusion: Ceramic and composite inlays both showed clinically satisfactory results in 12 months. The stability of
the ceramic inlays was also better in all the parameters tested, though not statistically significant. The two materials
can be considered as viable Class II posterior restorations when selected with the right cases.