RESTAURACIONES CON RESINA COMPUESTA COMPARANDO TÉCNICA CONVENCIONAL VERSUS TÉCNICA INDIRECTA EN DIENTES POSTERIORES UTILIZANDO TECNOLOGÍA CAD/CAM: un estudio piloto controlado y aleatorizado.

Abstract

Problem setting: Few clinical studies have compared the application of composite resins using direct and indirect methods. In the scientific literature, no technique is found that describes large composite resin restorations guided by a CAD/CAM method. Objective: To evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth, using conventional and indirect techniques over a period of 7 days. The evaluation will be carried out considering the United States Public Health 4 Service (USPHS) criteria, analyzing aspects such as marginal adaptation, marginal pigmentation, wear, retention, the presence of recurrent caries, and surface texture. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted with participants requiring restoration procedures for extensively damaged teeth, using both direct and indirect techniques, according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two clinical evaluations were performed by a calibrated examiner: one immediately after the restoration and another after 7 days. The modified USPHS criteria were used to evaluate the restorations. The data considered for statistical analysis and the results obtained were evaluated using non-parametric tests (Chi-square) with a significance level of 5%. Results: Statistical analysis revealed no statistically significant differences among the restorative techniques according to the criteria evaluated in 7 days. All criteria received the alpha score during baseline and 7-day control. All criteria received the alpha score during baseline and 7-day control. Conclusion: One of the main limitations of this study is the short observation period, as the follow-up was conducted only for 7 days. This time frame is insufficient to assess the long-term behavior of the restorations in terms of wear, marginal adaptation, or pigmentation. Therefore, no significant differences were observed between the restorative techniques in this preliminary study, which does not allow for recommending one technique over the other. It is essential to conduct further studies with a longer follow-up period and a larger number of participants to draw more solid and substantiated conclusions.