## 3 Results  
The choice of restoration method and restoration material is determined by several different parameters. These include the condition of the hard dental tissues of the tooth, the color of the existing tooth and adjacent teeth, the position of the tooth in the dental arch, the esthetic expectations of the patient, and the skills of the treating team--the clinician and dental technician who will implement the treatment. The use of composite cement improved the integration between the tooth and the restoration, transferring the external forces to the dentin. As a result, we observed an increase in ceramic resistance, which enhances the clinical durability of these restorations [20; 21]. The results after the clinical evaluation of the indirect ceramic restorations in the 2 nd, 5 th, and 10 th years after cementation are shown in Table 2.  
During the first follow-up period, postoperative sensitivity was found to be 2.32% (Table 2), and on detailed analysis, it was found that this was grade \"Bravo\" 4.55% from observed molars in Group II (Table 3). In 2.38% of the restorations in Group I, they do not conform to the existing anatomical form but lack exposed dentin for the first period of observation (Table 3). In contrast to the results obtained during the first follow-up period, during the second period (5 th year), there was a decrease in the value for Criterion 3 (1.16%), preservation of the same value for Criterion 4 (1.16%), and appearance of grade \"Bravo\" and grade \"Charlie\" in Criteria 5 and 6. Regarding the assessment of proximal contacts, the grade \"Bravo\" is 5.95% (for 5 clinical cases) and the grade \"Charlie\" is 2.32% in two clinical cases (Table 2). The group distribution shows higher values for grade \"Bravo\" in molars and both Criteria 5 and 6, specifically 6.82% and 4.55% in Group II, and 4.76% and 2.38% in Group I of premolars (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Period**} & **Criterion** & **1** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**6**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**7**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **Grade** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** & \(n\) & **\%** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2 nd year} & Alfa & 86 & 100 & 86 & 100 & 84 & 97.68 & 86 & 100 & 86 & 100 & 86 & 100 & 86 & 100 & \\ \cline{2-13}  & Bravo & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 2.32 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\ \cline{2-13}  & Charlie & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5 th year} & Alfa & 86 & 100 & 83 & 96.51 & 85 & 98.84 & 86 & 100 & 79 & 91.73 & 82 & 95.35 & 86 & 100 & \\ \cline{2-13}  & Bravo & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3.49 & 1 & 1.16 & 0 & 0 & 5 & 5.95 & 3 & 3.49 & 0 & 0 & \\ \cline{2-13}  & Charlie & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 2.32 & 1 & 1.16 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{10 th year} & Alfa & 83 & 96.51 & 80 & 93.03 & 84 & 97.68 & 85 & 98.84 & 79 & 91.73 & 82 & 95.35 & 84 & 97.68 & \\ \cline{2-13}  & Bravo & 3 & 3.49 & 6 & 6.97 & 2 & 2.32 & 1 & 1.16 & 3 & 3.49 & 1 & 1.16 & 2 & 2.32 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \cline{2-13}  & Charlie & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4 & 4.47 & 3 & 3.49 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(p\)-Value} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.005 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.007 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(<\)0. The 10-year long-term follow-up shows an entrainment of the \"Bravo\" grade in all USPHS criteria studied. There was an increase in Criteria 2 to 6 over the second follow-up period (Table 5). The \"Charlie\" rate remained unchanged at Criterion 5 over the 5-year evaluation period (4.54%). In Criterion 6, an increase was found for the 10-year follow-up compared to the 5-year follow-up, from 2.27% to 4.54% (Table 5).