Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing indirect versus direct composite restorations: A randomized clinical trial

Objective This study compared the clinical performance of large indirect restorations (IRs) versus direct restorations (DRs) in posterior teeth. Methods Thirty subjects received two class II restorations (n = 60), one fabricated from a precured composite block (Grandio Blocs, VOCO) for the indirect technique (IT) and the other with light-cured composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) for the direct technique (DT). For IT, the restoration was created using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturer (CAD/CAM) system. For DT, the material was applied light-cured by using a layering technique. All restorations were evaluated by using the World Dental Federation criteria. Results Twenty-three subjects attended the 2-year recall, and 46 restorations were evaluated. No significant differences were detected between the techniques for most parameters analyzed (p > 0.05). For "color match" at 7 days and 6 months, better results were observed for the DT. In relation to the overall scores, all restorations were esthetically acceptable after 2 years, while 93.3% of DT and 90% of IT showed acceptable function. For biological scores, 96.67% of DRs and 100% of IRs was acceptable after 24 months. Considering all properties, the success rates were 93.3% for DRs and 90% for IRs. Conclusions After 2 years, both restorations presented similar and good clinical behavior for all the properties analyzed. Clinical significance Light-cured direct posterior composite restorations may perform similarly to indirect composite restorations made with precured CAD/CAM composite blocks up to 2 years.