Marco M Gresnigt1, Warner Kalk, Mutlu Ozcan. 1. Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands. macrogresnigt@yahoo.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the short-term survival rate of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 patients (mean age: 48.6 years) received 46 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 23) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 23) on the maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed and existing resin composite restorations of good quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanization (ESPE-Sil). Enamel and dentin were etched and rinsed; adhesive resin (ExciTE) was then applied. After cementation (Variolink Veneer), restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months for up to 3 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS:Seventeen laminate veneers were bonded onto intact teeth and 29 on teeth having existing resin composite restorations. In total, 3 failures were observed in the form of debonding (n = 1) and fracture (n = 2) in the group of resin composite laminate veneers. No significant difference was observed between the survival rates of composite and ceramic laminate veneers (Estenia: 87%, IPS Empress Esthetic: 100%; p > 0.05). The overall survival rate was 93.5% (Kaplan-Meier). Of the 43 laminate veneers, minor voids and defects were observed in 6 of the composite and 3 of the ceramic veneers. Slight staining at the margins (n = 3) and slightly rough surfaces were more frequently observed for the resin composite laminate veneers (n = 18) up to the final recall. CONCLUSION: Early findings of this clinical trial on two veneer materials showed statistically similar survival rates. Surface quality changes were more frequent in the composite veneer material.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the short-term survival rate of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 patients (mean age: 48.6 years) received 46 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 23) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 23) on the maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed and existing resin composite restorations of good quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanization (ESPE-Sil). Enamel and dentin were etched and rinsed; adhesive resin (ExciTE) was then applied. After cementation (Variolink Veneer), restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months for up to 3 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: Seventeen laminate veneers were bonded onto intact teeth and 29 on teeth having existing resin composite restorations. In total, 3 failures were observed in the form of debonding (n = 1) and fracture (n = 2) in the group of resin composite laminate veneers. No significant difference was observed between the survival rates of composite and ceramic laminate veneers (Estenia: 87%, IPS Empress Esthetic: 100%; p > 0.05). The overall survival rate was 93.5% (Kaplan-Meier). Of the 43 laminate veneers, minor voids and defects were observed in 6 of the composite and 3 of the ceramic veneers. Slight staining at the margins (n = 3) and slightly rough surfaces were more frequently observed for the resin composite laminate veneers (n = 18) up to the final recall. CONCLUSION: Early findings of this clinical trial on two veneer materials showed statistically similar survival rates. Surface quality changes were more frequent in the composite veneer material.