Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
ISSN 1829-006X
2025; 342–348
Shared with The Gufo

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

Aditi Patel*, Nikunj Patel, Kailash Attur

Gujarat Vidyapith · Patel Dental College & Hospital, Visnagar, Gujarat, India · Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College & Hospital, Visnagar, Gujarat, India

Received: 2026-04-08 · Published: 2025-11-14

© 2025 The Author(s) and the original publisher.

CC BY-NC 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Shared article.
Original title
CLINICAL COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CLASS II CERAMIC AND COMPOSITE INLAYS: A 12- MONTH PROSPECTIVE STUDY
Authors
Aditi Patel, Nikunj Patel, Kailash Attur
Source journal
Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2025-11-14
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Original
https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2025.21.10-342

Abstract

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.
1 / ? 100% Open in new tab Download Cite

Loading the full text…

Download Follow Updates