Thais Mazzetti1, Kauê Collares2, Bruna Rodolfo3, Paullo Antônio da Rosa Rodolpho3, Françoise Hélène van de Sande4, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci5. 1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. Electronic address: thais.mazzetti@ufpel.edu.br. 2. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Brazil. 3. Private Dental Practitioner, Caxias do Sul, Brazil. 4. Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. 5. Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil; Radboudumc University Medical Center, Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Electronic address: maximiliano.cenci@ufpel.edu.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This 10-year practice-based study aimed to compare survival and success of direct resin composite and ceramic veneers placed in a private dental practice, between January 2008 and March 2014. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a clinical practice's records and were anonymized typed into electronic files. All veneer information was recorded, including previous restorations, repairs or failures, materials used, dates, patient, and age. RESULTS: We analyzed 1459 veneer restorations, of which 1043 (71.5%) were direct composite, and 416 (28.5%) were ceramic, placed in 341 patients. The mean patients' age was 47.8 years, and the mean number of restorations per patient was 4.3 restorations. During all follow-up, 957 (65.6%) veneers were successful without any repair, 252 (17.3%) were repaired and still in place, and 250 (17.1%) had a failure that resulted in replacement. Replacements were usually carried out with the same material placed at first. Considering success analysis, annual failure rates (AFR) for veneers in 5 and 10 years were 9.1% and 10% for direct composite and 2.9% and 2.8% for ceramic, respectively. Survival analysis showed AFR of 3.9% and 4.1% for composite and 1.4% and 1.2% for ceramic at the same periods. Cox regression was made for both success and survival outcomes. Composite veneers presented a higher risk of failure than ceramic veneers with higher hazard ratios for survival (HR) [HR 4.00 (2.74-5.83)] and success [HR 5.16 (2.65-10.04)]. SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic veneers had superior longevity than direct composite veneers in both success and survival analysis.
OBJECTIVES: This 10-year practice-based study aimed to compare survival and success of direct resin composite and ceramic veneers placed in a private dental practice, between January 2008 and March 2014. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a clinical practice's records and were anonymized typed into electronic files. All veneer information was recorded, including previous restorations, repairs or failures, materials used, dates, patient, and age. RESULTS: We analyzed 1459 veneer restorations, of which 1043 (71.5%) were direct composite, and 416 (28.5%) were ceramic, placed in 341 patients. The mean patients' age was 47.8 years, and the mean number of restorations per patient was 4.3 restorations. During all follow-up, 957 (65.6%) veneers were successful without any repair, 252 (17.3%) were repaired and still in place, and 250 (17.1%) had a failure that resulted in replacement. Replacements were usually carried out with the same material placed at first. Considering success analysis, annual failure rates (AFR) for veneers in 5 and 10 years were 9.1% and 10% for direct composite and 2.9% and 2.8% for ceramic, respectively. Survival analysis showed AFR of 3.9% and 4.1% for composite and 1.4% and 1.2% for ceramic at the same periods. Cox regression was made for both success and survival outcomes. Composite veneers presented a higher risk of failure than ceramic veneers with higher hazard ratios for survival (HR) [HR 4.00 (2.74-5.83)] and success [HR 5.16 (2.65-10.04)]. SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic veneers had superior longevity than direct composite veneers in both success and survival analysis.