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.