The adhesively bonded ceramic restorations presented satisfactory results after five years of clinical service. There was no significant difference between ceramic systems regarding survival.

SUMMARY This study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rate of 87% was recorded. The Fisher exact test revealed no significant difference between Duceram and IPS Empress ceramic systems for all aspects evaluated at different recall appointments (p>0.05). The McNemar chi-square test showed significant differences in relation to marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and surface texture between the baseline and five-year recall for both systems (p<0.001), with an increased percentage of Bravo scores. However, few Charlie or Delta scores were attributed to these restorations. In conclusion, these two types of ceramic materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance after five years.