M M M Gresnigt1, M S Cune2, K Jansen3, S A M van der Made4, M Özcan5. 1. University Medical Center Groningen, The University of Groningen, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, the Netherlands; Martini Hospital, Department of Special Dental Care, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: marcogresnigt@yahoo.com. 2. University Medical Center Groningen, The University of Groningen, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, the Netherlands; St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; University Medical Center Utrecht, department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. University Medical Center Groningen, The University of Groningen, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Dental laboratory Kwalident, Beilen, the Netherlands. 5. University of Zurich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this randomized split-mouth clinical trial the survival rate and quality of survival of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers were evaluated. METHODS:A total of 48 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 24) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 24) were placed on maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed using a mock up technique. Survival of the restoration was considered the primary outcome measure and reported using Kaplan-Meier statistics and survival curves compared by means of Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) test. After luting, restorations were evaluated by calibrated operators at baseline and every year thereafter, using modified USPHS criteria and compared by means of Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 6 failures were observed, consisting of debonding (n = 3) and fracture (n = 3), all in the group of the indirect resin composite laminate veneers. Cumulative chance on survival after 10 years of the indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers was 75% (se 3,8%) and 100% respectively (p = 0.013). Of the surviving 42 laminate veneers, the variables 'color match' (p = 0.002), 'surface roughness' (p = 0.000), 'fracture of the restoration' (p = 0.028), and 'wear of the restoration' (p = 0.014), were significantly less favourable among the composite laminate veneers as well. CONCLUSIONS: The ceramic veneers on maxillary anterior teeth in this study performed significantly better compared to the composite indirect laminate veneers after a decade, both in terms of survival rate and in terms of quality of the surviving restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When indicated, anterior ceramic laminate veneers may be preferred over indirect composite laminate veneers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: In this randomized split-mouth clinical trial the survival rate and quality of survival of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers were evaluated. METHODS: A total of 48 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 24) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 24) were placed on maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed using a mock up technique. Survival of the restoration was considered the primary outcome measure and reported using Kaplan-Meier statistics and survival curves compared by means of Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) test. After luting, restorations were evaluated by calibrated operators at baseline and every year thereafter, using modified USPHS criteria and compared by means of Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 6 failures were observed, consisting of debonding (n = 3) and fracture (n = 3), all in the group of the indirect resin composite laminate veneers. Cumulative chance on survival after 10 years of the indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers was 75% (se 3,8%) and 100% respectively (p = 0.013). Of the surviving 42 laminate veneers, the variables 'color match' (p = 0.002), 'surface roughness' (p = 0.000), 'fracture of the restoration' (p = 0.028), and 'wear of the restoration' (p = 0.014), were significantly less favourable among the composite laminate veneers as well. CONCLUSIONS: The ceramic veneers on maxillary anterior teeth in this study performed significantly better compared to the composite indirect laminate veneers after a decade, both in terms of survival rate and in terms of quality of the surviving restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When indicated, anterior ceramic laminate veneers may be preferred over indirect composite laminate veneers.
Authors: Louis Hardan; Davide Mancino; Rim Bourgi; Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez; Monika Lukomska-Szymanska; Maciej Zarow; Natalia Jakubowicz; Juan Eliezer Zamarripa-Calderón; Laura Kafa; Olivier Etienne; François Reitzer; Naji Kharouf; Youssef Haïkel Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Robert H Morris; Nicasio R Geraldi; Johanna L Stafford; Abi Spicer; James Hall; Christopher Bradley; Michael I Newton Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-04-04 Impact factor: 3.623