Abstract: Aim This in vitro study compares a new system for manual chair side fabrication of indirect composite restorations, which uses silicone models after alginate impressions, to CAD/CAM-technology and laboratory manual production techniques.
Methods and study design Each 10 composite inlays were fabricated using different types of production techniques: CAD/CAM-technology (A), the new inlay system (B), plaster model after alginate impression (C) or silicone impression (D). The inlays were adapted into a metal tooth and silicone replicas of the cement gaps were made and measured. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test.
Results and Statistics In group A the biggest marginal gaps (174.9 µm ± 106.2 µm) were found. In group B the gaps were significantly smaller (119.5 µm ± 90.6 µm) than in group A (p=0.035). Between groups C (64.6 µm ± 68.0 µm) and D (58.2 µm ± 61.7 µm) no significant differences could be found (p=0.998), but the gaps were significantly smaller compared with group B,
Conclusion Chairside manufacturing of composite inlays resulted in better marginal precision than CAD/CAM technology. In comparison to build restorations in a laboratory, the new system is a timesaving and inexpensive alternative. Nevertheless, production of indirect composite restorations in the dental laboratory showed the highest precision.