Table 4.
Summary of clinical studies on IRC.
| Clinical study type | Materials compared | Parameters compared | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Four – six year follow up of resin inlay /onlay[85] (Leirskar et al. 2003) | Tetric, Maxxim, Z 100 | Form, MF, MD, CM, SR, SC | 22% of restorations - acceptable and required minimal corrections. |
| 2- surface restoration performed better than 3 surfaced and onlays | |||
| Seven year follow up resin inlay / onlay[86] (Donly et al. 1999) | Cast gold, Concept | F, CM, MD, SC, W, SR, (Ryge criteria) in molars and premolars | 50-75% Alpha ratings for all parameters for concept. Concept yields clinically acceptable restorations particularly in premolars |
| One year follow up[87] (Cetin AR et al. 2009) | AELITE, Filtek supreme XT, Tetricevoceram (Nano filled direct composites) Tescera ATL, estenia | Class I and Class II SR, CM, MD, PS, GA, Rt (Ryge criteria) | 85-100% Alpha ratings for all parameters for both direct and indirect composites. |
| Three year follow up[88] (Ducik w et al. 2010) | Admira (ormocer), Grandio | SR, F, MI, MD (Modified USPHS criteria) | Alpha 1 score for overall success -71% - both materials Both materials have acceptable success after 36 months |
| Three yr follow up of CAD CAM composite and ceramic[89] (Vanoorbeek et al. 2010) | marginal fit, periodontal parameters, volume loss, and wear patterns of the veneering material | Survival rate andsuccess rate was 88 and 56% forcomposite | |
| Survival rate andsuccess rate was 97 and 81% for ceramics | |||
| Increased wear and decreased esthetics of composite makes ceramics superior for CAD CAM restorations | |||
| One year results for direct and indirect composite inlays[90] (Mendonca et al. 2010) | TetricEvo Ceram, Targis | modified USPHS criteria forCM, MD, SC, AF, SR, MI, PS. | This is a short term study. |
| CS, PS – no changes | |||
| CM, AF, SR similar to both materials. | |||
| Other parameters direct resin performed better. | |||
| A 4-6 yr retrospective study on cracked tooth bonded with indirect resin[91] (Signore et al. 2007) | Direct composite restoration followed by indirect onlay | Acceptable &survival rate-93 % 7% failure rate | |
| A 3 yr RCT in evaluating direct and indirect composite for severely worn teeth[92] (Bartlett 2007) | 32 direct and indirect restorations in premolar and molar of severely worn teeth. | Wear fracture and loss of material was evaluated | 22% fractured, 28% - complete loss of restoration. Direct and indirect resin composites for restoring worn posterior teeth is contraindicated. |
| 10 year follow up on direct, indirect and ceramic inlay[93] (Thordruo 2006) | Cerec Cos 2, Vita Dur, Brilliant DI, Estilux | modified retrospective study on cracked tooth bonded with indirect resin (Signore et.al 2007California Dental Association Quality Evaluation System SR, F, SC | 3 estilux inlays were replaced |
| 6 vitadur inlays were repaired | |||
| Both materials were in acceptable range after 10 yrs. | |||
| 5 yr follow up of direct inlays and conventional resin restorations[94] (Wassell et al. 2002) | MD, MF, SR, W (USPHS criteria) | More failure of inlays than conventional composites Direct inlay technique gave no clinical advantage over conventional, incremental placement | |
| Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation[95] (Pallesen et al. 2003). | Brillinat DI, Estilux, SR isosit | Class II restoration in molar and premolars (USPHS criteria) | 70% of direct fillings and 88% of inlays were in acceptable ratings |
| Failure more in molar than premolar failure were fracture of restoration, secondary caries, fracture of tooth, loss of proximal contact, and loss of restoration | |||
| no significant difference between fillings and inlays or between types of restoration | |||
| Three year follow up of resin inlays[96] Manhart et al. 2010) | Artglass, Charisma | Class I, single and multisurface Class II inlays. (USPHS criteria) | 89.8% of Artglass and 84.1% of Charisma inlays – acceptable |
| No significant differences between premolar and molars | |||
| Small inlays survived better | |||
| Failure was mainly due to bulk fracture, loss of marginal integrity. | |||
| Two year wear assessment[97] (Stober et al. 2008) | Artglass | Influence of gender, arch, and crown location on the occlusal wear | In 1 yr – 19µ for anterior and premolar, 21µ for molars |
| In 2 yr – 36 µ for anterior, 44µ for premolar and 84µ | |||
| In 2 yr – 36 µ for anterior, 44µ for premolar and 84µ for molars. | |||
| Adhesively luted metal free crowns for5 years[98] (Lehmann et al. 2009) Artglass | Artglass | Location and preparation design on survival rates. 68 posterior, 46 anterior crowns with 0.5mm shoulder / 0.5mm chamfer was prepared | 13 crowns – replaced, 5 crowns – repaired. No difference between location or preparation design on complications. |
| survival rate -96% in 3 yrs 88.5% in 5 yrs can be used as long term temporary crown increased plaque accumulation restricts the indication |
MD- marginal discoloration, SC – secondary caries, SR- surface roughness, MF- marginal fit, W-wear, CM- color match, F- form, MI-marginal integrity.