The One-Year In Vivo Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconium Dioxide Inlays

• Main Authors: Rini Behera, Lora Mishra, Darshan Devang Divakar, Abdulaziz A. Al-Kheraif, Naomi Ranjan Singh, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-06-01
• Series: Materials
• Subjects: CAD-CAM; inlay; lithium disilicate; zirconium dioxide
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/11/3102

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate (LD) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO₂) class II inlay restorations. Thirty healthy individuals who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. The patients were randomly divided into two study groups (<i>n</i> = 15): LD (IPS e.max press) and ZrO₂ (Dentcare Zirconia). In the ZrO₂ group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were sandblasted and silanized with Monobond N (Ivoclar, Leichsteistein, Germany). In the LD group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid. The ceramic inlays were cemented with self-cure resin cement (Multilink N). Clinical examinations were performed using modified United State Public Health Codes and Criteria (USPHS) after 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. The one-year survival rate was evaluated. In total, one failure was observed in the ZrO₂ group. The survival probability after 1 year for the ZrO₂ inlays was 93%, and for the LD inlays was 100%, which was statistically insignificant. The differences between both groups for most USPHS criteria (except for colour match) were statistically insignificant. Within the imitations of the present study, the lithium disilicate- and zirconia dioxide-based inlays exhibited comparable clinical performances. However, the colour and translucency match was superior for the lithium disilicate restorations.