Abstract Introduction: Dental restorations fix teeth damaged by decay, fractures or aesthetics. Composite restorations are popular for their appearance and versatility. Direct composites are quicker and cheaper but have drawbacks like shrinkage. Indirect composites offer better durability and aesthetics but cost more and take longer. This study compares both methods for proximal cavities in posterior teeth over a year, assessing colour, margins, integrity and sensitivity to guide clinical decisions. Materials and Methods: Eighty Class II restorations were performed on 40 patients with at least two carious Class II lesions to evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite restorations (GC Solare Sculpt) and indirect composite inlays (GC Gradia Plus) in posterior teeth. Evaluations were done at baseline and after 12 months using the modified USPHS criteria, focusing on colour matching, marginal discolouration, marginal integrity and pulp sensitivity. The data analysis was done using the SPSS software. Results: Modified USPHS criteria were used to evaluate colour matching, marginal discolouration, marginal integrity and pulp sensitivity at baseline and 12 months. Initially, both restoration types performed well. By 12 months, indirect composites outperformed direct composites in colour matching, marginal discolouration and integrity, while pulpal sensitivity was comparable. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that after a 12-month follow-up, indirect composite resin restorations outperformed direct resin restorations. This superior performance of indirect composites can be attributed to their improved physical properties, resistance to wear and higher degree of polymerisation, resulting in reduced polymerisation shrinkage.
Gupta et al. (Thu,) studied this question.