Clinical longevity of ceramic laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without existing composite restorations up to 40 months

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without existing composite restorations (ECR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients (mean age: 49.7 years) received 92 feldspathic ceramic laminate veneers (Shofu Vintage AL) on the maxillary teeth (intact teeth: n = 26; teeth with ECR: n = 66). Preparations with incisal overlap were made, and ECR of good quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanization (ESPE-Sil). Enamel and dentin were etched with 38% H3PO4 for 15-30 s and rinsed 30 s; adhesive resin (Excite) was applied, and laminate veneers were then cemented (Variolink Veneer). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS: Mean observation period was 21.6 months. Overall, five absolute failures were encountered (fractures: n = 3; chipping: n = 1; debonding: n = 1), resulting in a survival rate of 94.6% (Kaplan-Meier). Survival rates of the laminates bonded to teeth without (96%) and with ECR (93.5%) did not show significant differences (p > 0.05). Slight marginal defects (16 of 87 laminates) and slight marginal discoloration at the margins were noted (12 of 87 laminates) until the final recall. Secondary caries and endodontic complications were not detected in any of the teeth. CONCLUSION: The clinical survival of ceramic laminate veneers up to 40 months was not significantly influenced when they were bonded onto intact teeth or onto teeth with ECR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When no caries is present, it may not be necessary to replace existing composite restorations prior to cementation of ceramic laminate veneers. AbstractsObjectives This study evaluated the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without existing composite restorations (ECR). Materials and methodsTwenty patients (mean age: 49.7 yrs) received 92 feldspathic ceramic laminate veneers (Shofu Vintage AL) on the maxillary teeth (intact teeth: n=26; teeth with ECR: n=66). Preparations with incisal overlap were made and ECR of good quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanization (ESPE-Sil). Enamel and dentin were etched with 38% H 3 PO 4 for 15-30 s, rinsed 30 s, adhesive resin (Excite) was applied and laminate veneers were then cemented (Variolink Veneer). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months using modified USPHS criteria.Results Mean observation period was 21.6 months. Overall, 5 absolute failures were encountered (fractures: n=3; chipping: n=1; debonding: n=1) resulting in a survival rate of 94.6% (Kaplan-Meier). Survival rates of the laminates bonded to teeth without (96%) and with ECR (93.5%) did not show significant differences (p>0.05). Slight marginal defects (16 of 87 laminates) and slight marginal discoloration at the margins were noted (12 of 87 laminates) until the final recall. Secondary caries and endodontic complications were not detected in any...

Effect of immediate and delayed dentin sealing on the fracture strength, failure type and Weilbull characteristics of lithiumdisilicate laminate veneers

“…However, in an in vitro study, ceramic laminate veneers bonded to a complete composite surface presented higher fracture strength results than those bonded onto enamel [20]. Similarly, clinical survival rate of laminate veneers bonded onto teeth with existing composite restorations after the latter was tribochemical silicacoated, was not less than those bonded on enamel/dentin up to 40 months of evaluation [21]. Thus, it can be anticipated that the presence of adhesive resin would also not impair the bond strength of laminate veneers on the IDS.…”

Esthetic rehabilitation with minimally invasive feldspathic ceramic veneers: 30 months of clinical follow-up

“…The small amount of preparation that allows teeth wear limited to enamel makes the technique appropriate once the dentistry increasingly recommends conservative procedures. According to the data found in the literature by the authors, the mean of clinical follow-up nearest to this clinical report evaluation period was 21.6 months (GRESNIGT; KALK; OZCAN, 2013). In this period, the feldspathic ceramic veneers obtained survival rate of 94.6%.…”

“…The improvements of dental materials have made ceramic a desirable option for indirect aesthetic restorative procedures (GRESNIGT; KALK; OZCAN, 2013;MORIMOTO et al, 2016). The cumulative survive rate is 87% with a medium followed-up of 8 years for feldsptathic ceramics (MORIMOTO et al, 2016).…”

“…In indirect procedures, feldspathic ceramics veneers are indicated and represent an excellent treatment alternative (GRESNIGT; KALK; OZCAN, 2013;MORIMOTO et al, 2016). The ceramic restorations present high color and surface smoothness stability when compared to composite resin (GAROUSHI et al, 2013).…”

Esthetic Rehabilitation of Anterior Teeth with Laminates Composite Veneers

“…While the scientific literature is more extensive for ceramic laminates, a recently published clinical trial (with a 3-years follow-up) has reported no significant difference in the survival rate of composite (87%) and ceramic (100%) veneers; on the other hand, some surface quality changes were more frequently observed for the resin materials (i.e., minor voids and defects and slight staining at the margins) [26]. In addition, the survival rate and clinical performance of composite or ceramic laminate veneers were not significantly influenced when bonded onto intact elements or onto teeth with preexisting composite restorations (when no caries or infiltration is present, of course) [27, 28]. As a final recommendation, like after the delivering of many other types of indirect restorations, the dentist should plan a careful follow-up program and give patients appropriate instructions for maintenance and preservation of the obtained success.…”