Abstract

The aim and objectives of the study was to evaluate aesthetics characteristic of lithium disilicate ceramics indirect restorations made by 2 different techniques. Materials and method. A questionnaire with 10 questions regarding the aesthetic and clinical characteristic of 5 different types of lithium disilicate ceramics indirect restorations was addressed to 30 observers with different background knowledge. They were instructed to score each characteristic with a grade from 1 to 10 (1 the poorest, 10 the best). The data was analyzed with dedicated software. Results. Dental technicians were the most critical by giving the lowest grades. Dental students and dentists evaluated approximately in the same way the restorations. Pressed technique received better grades than CAD CAM technique. Conclusions: In the limit of this study, the observers have revealed that both techniques are suitable for indirect restoration, but the pressed technique had better esthetic results than CAD CAM technique.

Authors and Affiliations