EC Dental Science

Extensive cavity preparations in posterior teeth often compromise the mechanical performance of direct resin composite restorations. In such cases, indirect ceramic restorations, including inlays and onlays, provide a predictable alternative by combining mechanical strength, esthetic integration, and biocompatibility. The increasing use of metal-free ceramics is supported by their favorable physical properties and optical behavior, as well as by advances in fabrication techniques such as CAD/CAM, heat-pressing, and layering methods. When properly indicated and adhesively bonded, these restorations ensure long-term clinical success while preserving sound dental tissues. Compared with full-coverage crowns, partial adhesive restorations offer a more conservative approach, reinforcing weakened tooth structure while minimizing biological cost. The evolution of adhesive dentistry has significantly expanded the clinical indications of such restorations. This case report describes the management of a severely decayed mandibular molar in a 22- year-old patient using an indirect ceramic onlay. The procedure involved minimally invasive preparation, precise impression and fabrication, and adhesive cementation, resulting in excellent functional and esthetic outcomes.

Keywords: Ceramic Onlay; Adhesive Resin Cement; Indirect Restoration; Posterior Teeth; Minimally Invasive Dentistry

1. Betson IR and Jones IR. “All-ceramic inlays and onlays for posterior teeth”. Dental Update 7 (2019): 610-624.
2. “Glossary of prosthodontic terms”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 5S (2017): e1-e105.
3. Felden A., et al. “Retrospective clinical study and survival analysis of ceramic inlays and partial crowns: results up to 7 years”. Clinical Oral Investigations 4 (1998): 161-167.
4. Fuzzi M and Rappelli G. “Survival rate of ceramic inlays”. Journal of Dentistry 7 (1998): 623-626.
5. Schulz P., et al. “A retrospective study of Mirage ceramic inlays over a period of up to 9 years”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 5 (2003): 510-514.
6. Morimoto S., et al. “Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta- analysis”. Journal of Dental Research 9 (2016): 985-994.
7. Chabouis HF., et al. “Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review”. Dental Material 12 (2013): 1209-1218.
8. Höland W., et al. “Ceramics as biomaterials for dental restoration”. Expert Review of Medical Devices 6 (2008): 729-745.
9. Terry DA., et al. “Developing form, function, and natural aesthetics with laboratory-processed composite resin-Part I”. Practical Procedures in Aesthetic Dentistry 5 (2005): 313-320.
10. Jaeggi T and Lussi A. “Erosion in children in early school age”. Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin 9 (2004): 876-881.
11. Lussi A and Carvalho TS. “Erosive tooth wear: a multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge”. In: Lussi A, Ganss C, editors. Monographs in Oral Science. Volume 25. Basel: Karger (2014): 1-15.
12. Loomans B., et al. “Severe tooth wear: European consensus statement on management guidelines”. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2 (2017): 111-119.
13. Edelhoff D., et al. “Clinical performance of occlusal onlays made of lithium disilicate in patients with severe tooth wear: up to 11 years of follow-up”. Dental Material 9 (2019): 1319-1330.
14. Vagropoulou GI., et al. “Complications and survival rates of inlays and onlays compared to full restorations: a systematic review”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 11 (2018): 903-920.
15. Bustamante-Hernández N., et al. “Clinical behavior of ceramic, hybrid, and composite onlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (2020): 7582.
16. Coşkun E., et al. “Evaluation of two different CAD/CAM inlay-onlays in a split-mouth study: a 2-year clinical follow-up”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 3 (2020): 244-250.
17. Frankenberger R., et al. “Leucite- reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years”. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 5 (2008): 393-398.
18. Guess PC., et al. “Prospective clinical split-mouth study of pressed and CAD/CAM all-ceramic partial restorations: 7-year results”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 1 (2013): 21-25.
19. Vohra FA., et al. “Contemporary adhesive ceramic onlays: a reliable alternative to full-coverage crowns-report of three cases”. Journal of the Dow University of Health Sciences 1 (2014): 35-40.
20. Edelhoff D and Sorensen JA. “Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 5 (2002): 503-509.
21. Beier US., et al. “Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 4 (2012): 395-402.
22. Mandal NB., et al. “Clinical evaluation of inlays and onlays in posterior ceramic restorations: an original study”. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences 1 (2022): S310-S312.
23. Santos MJ., et al. “Clinical evaluation of two types of ceramic inlays and onlays after 6 months”. Journal of Applied Oral Science 3 (2004): 213-218.
24. Abduo J and Sambrook RJ. “Longevity of ceramic onlays: a systematic review”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 3 (2018): 193-215.
25. Nathanson D., et al. “CAD/CAM ceramic inlays and onlays: application of an indirect technique”. Journal of the American Dental Association 4 (1994): 421-427.
26. Nirmala S., et al. “Ceramic onlay: a case report”. Cureus12 (2022): e32641.
27. Krämer N., et al. “Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years”. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 4 (2008): 307-314.
28. Santos GJ., et al. “Overview of chairside CAD/CAM CEREC system”. General Dentistry 1 (2013): 36-41.
29. Krämer N., et al. “IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years: a clinical study”. Journal of Dentistry 5 (1999): 325-331.