https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/41 Thu, 10 Sep 2026 22:18:46 GMT 2026-09-10T22:18:46Z https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/920 CAD-CAM systems VS conventional design. Quality evaluation. OBJECTIVE : The aim of this study was to determine, by using a comparative scale, the quality of an indirect inlay done by two types of methods. Conventional hand-maid inlay (group control) and CAD-CAM inlay. MATERIAL AND METHODS : three groups were used to design both types of restoration : Graduate Students (GS) Master students (MS) and teachers (T). The Conventional hand-maid inlay (CHM) was done with with FILTEK composite, and the CAD-CAM inlay (CC) was done with Lava ultimate. Five criteria were analyzed in this study : surface lustre (SL), esthetic anatomical form (AF), marginal adaptation (MA), occlusal form contact point (OFCP), evaluator’s general view (GV). All these quality criteria were compared between CHM and CC, but also between each deferents operators. RESULTS : The results of the study show statistically significant difference between the quality of CHM and CC (p-valor < 0,05). The null hypothesis was rejected. For all group mingled, the average score for the CC was 1,94 versus 2,22 for the CHM. More specifically, GS group showed statistically significant difference when designing the inlay regardless of the type of method used (CHM and CC) versus MS and T. However no statistically significant difference was observed between MS and T. Analyzing with more details for each group, the study reveled better results for CC than CHM for GS and T groups, but better results for CHM than CC for MS group. CONCLUSION : With the limit of the study, we can say that CC design showed better results than CHM design. But if we analyze with more details, MS group had better results with CHM than CC design. We can conclude that CC is a good alternative to CHM, but depending on the operator. Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 GMT https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/920 2016-12-19T00:00:00Z