Abstract
A clinical trial of direct composite inlays versus conventionally (incrementally) placed restorations made from the same material was started in January 1989. Restorations were randomly allocated to matched pairs of cavities. This study reports the 3-year performance of 71 of the 100 pairs of restorations placed over a 2-year period and followed-up every 6 months. Clinical assessments were made using USPHS criteria (indirect measurements of occlusal wear were made using Ivoclar standard dies) and annual bite wing radiographs. Direct inlays showed significantly less occlusal wear than conventional restorations, but the difference was small. The clinical performance of both types of restoration was similar and compared favourably with studies of other materials. No secondary decay was diagnosed. The direct inlays, however, took longer to place and did not reduce postoperative sensitivity or failure rate (8% failure of inlays and 4% of conventional composites over 3 years). Contouring of proximal and occlusal aspects was not facilitated with direct inlays but may be easier with indirect inlays on removable dies
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wassell, R., Walls, A. & McCabe, J. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J 179, 343–349 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808919
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808919
This article is cited by
-
Influence of proximal box elevation on bond strength of composite inlays
Clinical Oral Investigations (2017)
-
Resin Coating Technique for Protection of Pulp and Increasing Bonding in Indirect Restoration
Current Oral Health Reports (2015)
-
Survival analysis of composite Dahl restorations provided to manage localised anterior tooth wear (ten year follow-up)
British Dental Journal (2011)