dc.description | 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. | |