Indirect composite restorations luted with two different procedures: A ten years follow up clinical trial

OBJECTIVES The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate posterior indirect composite resin restoration ten years after placement luted with two different procedures. STUDY DESIGN In 23 patients 22 inlays/onlays (Group A) were luted using a dual-cured resin composite cement and 26 inlays/onlays (Group B) were luted using a light cured resin composite for a total of 48 Class I and Class II indirect composite resin inlays and onlays. The restorations were evaluated at 2 time points: 1) one week after placement (baseline evaluation) and 2) ten years after placement using the modified USPHS criteria. The Mann-Whitney and the Wilcoxon tests were used to examine the difference between the results of the baseline and 10 years evaluation for each criteria. RESULTS Numerical but not statistically significant differences were noted on any of the recorded clinical parameters (p>0.05) between the inlay/onlays of Group A and Group B. 91% and 94 % of Group A and B respectively were rated as clinically acceptable in all the evaluated criteria ten years after clinical function. CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of the study the results showed after ten years of function a comparable clinical performance of indirect composite resin inlays/onlays placed with a light cure or dual cure luting procedures. Key words:Light curing composite, dual curing composite, indirect composite restoration, inlays/onlays, clinical trial.