Three-year clinical evaluation of two different inlay materials for restoration of 454 posterior teeth defects

ZHOU Tian; REN Jing; CAO Liangju; JIAN Zhishan; XIA Zhoubin

doi:10.15956/j.cnki.chin.j.conserv.dent.2025.08.005

Abstract：Objective To compare the 3-year clinical performance efficacy of E.MAX Press ceramic inlays and E.MAX CAD/CAM chairside immediate ceramic inlays for posterior tooth restoration.Methods A total of 454 restorations were replaced in 375 patients,including 298 E.MAX Press inlays(246 patients)(124 vital teeth,174 non-vital teeth;69 premolars,229 molars;106 inlays,192 onlays)and 156 E.MAX CAD/CAM inlays(129 patients)(84 vital teeth,72 non-vital teeth;35 premolars,121 molars;58 inlays,98 onlays).Clinical outcomes,including restoration loss,restoration fracture,pulpal complications,abutment tooth fracture,secondary caries,and food impaction,were evaluated according to the revised United States Public Health Service(USPHS)criteria.Failure rates between two groups were compared using the Chisquare test after 3 years of follow-up.Results The overall failure rates did not differ significantly between E.MAX Press ceramic inlays and CAD/CAM chairside immediate ceramic inlays(P＞0.05).Within the E.MAX Press group,no significant differenceswere observed between premolars and molars(P＞0.05),but significant differences were found between non-vital teeth and vital teeth(P＜0.05).In the CAD/CAM group,there were no significant differences between premolars and molars or between non-vital teeth and vital teeth(P＞0.05).Comparisons of the two materials within each subgroup(vital,non-vital,premolar,molar)also showed no significant differences(P＞0.05).Conclusion Both E.MAX Press and E.MAX CAD/CAM inlays demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes during short-term(3-year)clinical observation.However,E.MAX Press inlays placed on root canal treated teeth showed a relatively higher incidence of tooth fracture,underscoring the need for further prospective clinical studies.