This study was designed to evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of two different resin-matrix ceramic inlays
The design of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was a split-mouth, two-arm, double-blinded clinical trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The reporting of the trial followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. Twelve adult patients seeking dental treatments in the Conservative Dentistry Department outpatient clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, were enrolled in the current study with a total of twenty-four compound inlay cavities. Each patient must sign a consent form before participating in the current study. The study was conducted from August 2023 to August 2025 as a part of the doctoral dissertation. Mansoura University's institution's ethics committee approved the form and protocol before conducting the study. The sample size was calculated using the G\*Power statistical program. Based on an effect size of 0.4, a significance level of 5% (p \< 0.05), and a statistical power of 80%, a minimum of 10 samples per group was required. To compensate for potential dropouts, the total sample size was increased to 12 patients, yielding a total of 24 restorations.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
12
Inlay cavity preparations were performed, and RMC restorations were designed, milled, finished, and cemented on the assigned contralateral site according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each patient received one material on one side of the mouth and the other on the contralateral side. Side allocation was randomized.
Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Al Mansurah, Dakahliya, Egypt
Esthetic, functional and biological properties for each CAD/CAM restorative material
Esthetic, functional and biological properties were assessed using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Each criterion was rated on a five-point scale, where a score of 1 indicated clinically excellent or very good performance, score 2 indicated clinically good, score 3 indicated a clinically satisfactory, score 4 indicated clinically unsatisfactory, and score 5 indicated clinically poor performance requiring repair or replacement.
Time frame: 2 years
Radiographic examination
Each material was examined radiographically and radiographs were assessed and rated following World Dental Federation (FDI) five-point scale, where a score of 1 indicated clinically excellent or very good performance, score 2 indicated clinically good, score 3 indicated a clinically satisfactory, score 4 indicated clinically unsatisfactory, and score 5 indicated clinically poor performance requiring repair or replacement.
Time frame: 2 years
Periodontal response and adjacent mucosa
Periodontal responce and adjacent mucosa were assessed using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Each criterion was rated on a five-point scale, where a score of 1 indicated clinically excellent or very good performance, score 2 indicated clinically good, score 3 indicated a clinically satisfactory, score 4 indicated clinically unsatisfactory, and score 5 indicated clinically poor performance requiring repair or replacement.
Time frame: 2 years
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.