Skip to main content

Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of laminate porcelain veneers bonded with a light-cured composite. Thirty patients were restored with 119 porcelain laminate veneers. The veneers were studied for an observation time of 7 years. Marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, color match, and anatomic form were clinically examined following modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Each restoration was also examined for cracks, fractures, and debonding. Pulp vitality was verified. In addition, plaque and gingival indexes and increase in gingival recession were recorded. Survival rate evaluating absolute failures and success rate describing relative failures were statistically determined, using both restoration and patient-related analyses. On the basis of the criteria used, most of the veneers rated Alfa. After 7 years, the results of the clinical investigation regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration revealed only 2.5% and 4.2% Bravo ratings, respectively, among the 119 initially placed veneers. Using the restoration as the statistical unit, the survival rate was 97.5%, with a high estimated success probability of 0.843 after 7 years. Using the patient as the statistical unit, the survival rate was 90.0% and the estimated success probability after 7 years was 0.824. Gingival response to the veneers was all in the satisfactory range. Porcelain laminate veneers offer a predictable and successful treatment modality giving a maximum preservation of sound tooth. The preparation, cementation, and finishing procedures adopted are considered key factors for the long-term success and aesthetical result of the veneer restorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Dumfahrt H, Schaffer H (2000) Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: part II—clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 13:9–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fradeani M (1998) Six-year follow-up with Empress veneers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 18:216–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M (2005) Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation—a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:9–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B (2004) A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 6:65–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smales RJ, Etemadi S (2004) Long-term survival of porcelain laminate veneers using two preparation designs: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 17:323–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guess PC, Stappert CF (2008) Midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical investigation of extended ceramic veneers. Dent Mater 24:804–813

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aykor A, Ozel E (2009) Five-year clinical evaluation of 300 teeth restored with porcelain laminate veneers using total-etch and a modified self-etch adhesive system. Oper Dent 34:516–523

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2000) Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent 28:163–177

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cötert HS, Dündar M, Oztürk B (2009) The effect of various preparation designs on the survival of porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent 11:405–411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D'Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, Zazzeroni S, Ciampoli C, D'Amario M (2008) In vitro fracture resistance and deflection of pulpless teeth restored with fiber posts and prepared for veneers. J Endod 34:838–841

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D'Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, D'Amario M, Caputi S (2010) Fracture resistance and deflection of pulpless anterior teeth restored with composite or porcelain veneers. J Endod 36:153–156

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Matsumura H, Aida Y, Ishikawa Y, Tanoue N (2006) Porcelain laminate veneer restorations bonded with a three-liquid silane bonding agent and a dual-activated luting composite. J Oral Sci 48:261–266

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Celik C, Gemalmaz D (2002) Comparison of marginal integrity of ceramic and composite veneer restorations luted with two different resin agents: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 15:59–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Acquaviva PA, Cerutti F, Adami G, Gagliani M, Ferrari M, Gherlone E, Cerutti A (2009) Degree of conversion of three composite materials employed in the adhesive cementation of indirect restorations: a micro-Raman analysis. J Dent 37:610–615

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ozyesil AG, Usumez A, Gunduz B (2004) The efficiency of different light sources to polymerize composite beneath a simulated ceramic restoration. J Prosthet Dent 91:151–157

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasetto FH, Driscoll CF, von Fraunhofer JA (2001) Effect of light source and time on the polymerization of resin cement through ceramic veneers. J Prosthodont 10:133–139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Belser UC, Magne P, Magne M (1997) Ceramic laminate veneers: continuous evolution of indications. J Esthet Dent 9:197–207

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mangani F, Cerutti A, Putignano A, Bollero R, Madini L (2007) Clinical approach to anterior adhesive restorations using resin composite veneers. Eur J Esthet Dent 2:188–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Magne P, Belser UC (2004) Novel porcelain laminate preparation approach driven by a diagnostic mock-up. J Esthet Restor Dent 16:7–16, discussion 17–18

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stappert CF, Ozden U, Gerds T, Strub JR (2005) Longevity and failure load of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs after exposure to masticatory simulation. J Prosthet Dent 94:132–139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Magne P (2005) Immediate dentin sealing: a fundamental procedure for indirect bonded restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 17:144–154, discussion 155

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cvar JF, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restoration materials. US Public Health Service Publication No. 790. Government Printing Office, San Francisco

  23. Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials, 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:209–214

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Silness J, Loe H (1964) Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 22:121–135

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Loe H, Silness J (1963) Periodontal disease in pregnancy. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 21:533–551

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kihn PW, Barnes DM (1998) The clinical longevity of porcelain veneers: a 48-month clinical evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 129:747–752

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roulet JF (2000) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam—results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Investig 1:40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rouse JS (1997) Full veneer versus traditional veneer preparation: a discussion of interproximal extension. J Prosthet Dent 78:545–549

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD (2000) Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 84:492–498

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camillo D’Arcangelo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Arcangelo, C., De Angelis, F., Vadini, M. et al. Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Invest 16, 1071–1079 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0593-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0593-0

Keywords

  • Adhesive luting
  • Ceramic
  • Clinical evaluation
  • Veneer