Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement

Abstract

Ceramic inlays offer a good alternative to posterior composites, which still show a high polymerization shrinkage. The thin cement layer will reduce the total amount of shrinkage and probably result in a better marginal adaptation and decreased marginal leakage. Fired feldspathic ceramic inlays cemented with either a glass ionomer cement or a dual-cured composite resin luting cement were compared intraindividually. During a 3-year period 118 inlays, 59 in each group, were examined. Eleven inlays were evaluated as non-acceptable during the period: two (3.4%) in the composite resin group and nine (15.3%) in the glass ionomer cement group. In the composite group one inlay fractured partially and one inlay was replaced because of postoperative sensitivity. In the glass ionomer group four inlays were totally lost, and partial fractures occurred in five inlays. In the fractured glass ionomer cemented inlays the cement was still in place in the cavities. Eight patients reported postoperative sensitivity. No secondary caries was detected around the inlays even though 46% of the patients were considered high caries risk patients.