Posterior composite resin inlays and onlays: a comparison of available systems.
With the increasing proliferation of materials and techniques for placement of posterior composite resin restorations, the dentist must have the information to make informed judgements on which to use in various clinical situations. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of each of three systems: 1) Direct, 2) Direct/Indirect and 3) Indirect. The increased demand for posterior esthetic restorations has been one of the hallmarks of the eighties. According to a recent American Dental Association survey, the use of resin restorations in posterior teeth is markedly increasing and is the restoration of choice over amalgam for 70 percent of those dentists who responded to the survey. For the restorative dentist who chooses to do posterior esthetic restorations, the biggest challenge lies in acquiring the knowledge and judgement to know which of the three current classes of materials and techniques to apply to each clinical situation. Although the influx of new materials into the marketplace makes it difficult to evaluate and categorize these materials as accurately as would be desired, generally, posterior composite resins can be classified in three general categories based on method of placement. These categories are: a) Direct placement b) Direct/Indirect placement or Direct Composite Inlay (DCI) c) Indirect placement
Porter
K H
KH
D001641:Bicuspid; D003188:Composite Resins; D006801:Humans; D007284:Inlays / Q000379:methods*; D008963:Molar
D003188:Composite Resins