Abstract:

Objective   To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Au alloy inlays, IPS EmpressⅡceramic inlays, Ceramage inlays and resin restoration in restoring the molar defect. Methods   45 Au alloy inlays, 48 Ceramage inlays, 44 IPS EmpressⅡceramic inlays and 52 composite resin were used to restore 189 molars from 138 patients respectively. All restorations were evaluated after half a year according to modified USPHS parameters. Results   There was no significant difference in the color match, marginal sealability, secondary carries and food embed between the three groups (P>0.05). The Au alloy inlays and Ceramage inlays showed a significantly better performance in resisting fracture than the ceramic inlays (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in the gingival response and food embed between the resin fillings and the inlays (P<0.05). Conclusion   It is an intriguing method using inlays to restore the molar defect, which is superior to resin restoration in the aspects of restoring proximal relationship and maintaining periodontal health．

Key words: Au alloy inlays； Ceramage inlays； Ceramic inlays； Resin restoration； The molar defect