The difference of the two techniques did not reach statistical significance in order to recommend one technique over the other .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Resin composite material s , placed directly or indirectly , exhibit a promising long-term clinical performance when rehabilitation of posterior teeth is needed .
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite inlays/onlays  in posterior teeth .
Although many years in clinical practice , the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains subjective .
Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Objective long-term clinical data are necessary to assess the performance of modern posterior composites as direct and indirect restorations . PURPOSE This prospect i ve , long-term clinical trial evaluated direct and indirect composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in single or multisurface cavities and provided a survey on the 3-year results . MATERIAL AND METHODS Under the supervision of an experienced dentist , 9 dental students placed 88 composite restorations ( Tetric , blend-a-lux , Pertac-Hybrid Unifil ) , 43 direct composite restorations , and 45 indirect inlays .  Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and in yearly intervals after placement by 2 other experienced dentists , using modified USPHS criteria . A third follow-up of 60 restorations took place within 33 to 36 months after placement . RESULTS A total of 93 % of indirect and 87 % of direct restorations were assessed to be clinical ly excellent or acceptable . During the third year , 1 direct restoration in a molar failed because of margin opening . Indirect inlays exhibited a significantly better anatomic form of the surface than direct composite restorations . Premolars revealed a significantly better marginal integrity and anatomic form of the surface than molars . Restorations in molars exhibited a significantly higher failure rate compared with premolars . CONCLUSION Posterior composite restorations provided a satisfactory clinical performance over a 3-year period , even if placed by relatively inexperienced but supervised students
The difference of the two techniques did not reach statistical significance in order to recommend one technique over the other .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Resin composite material s , placed directly or indirectly , exhibit a promising long-term clinical performance when rehabilitation of posterior teeth is needed .
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite inlays/onlays  in posterior teeth .
Although many years in clinical practice , the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains subjective .