Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ceramic laminate veneers: effect of preparation design and ceramic thickness on fracture resistance and marginal quality in vitro

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of five different preparation designs and two different ceramic thicknesses on margin quality and fracture resistance of ceramic laminate veneers after thermomechanical loading in vitro.

Materials and methods

Eighty human central incisors were randomly assigned to 10 groups (n = 8) with five different preparation designs: non-prep (NP), minimally invasive (MI) = exclusively enamel-bonded, semi-invasive (SI) = 50% bonded in dentin, invasive (I) = 100% in dentin, and semi-invasive with two additional class III composite resin restorations (SI-C). IPS InLine veneers were fabricated in two thicknesses (L1 = 0.2–0.5 mm; L2 = 0.5–1.2 mm). After adhesive luting (OptiBond FL, Variolink Veneer) with light curing and polishing, specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 21 days, then thermocycled (2000 cycles between + 5 and + 55 °C), and finally mechanically loaded at the incisal edge at an angle of 45° for 2,000,000 cycles at 50 N und further 1,000,000 cycles at 100 N. Impressions were taken initially, after thermocycling, and after every 250,000 mechanical cycles in order to evaluate cracks and margin quality under a SEM. The veneers were evaluated in a light microscope (× 20) for cracks, chippings, partial, and catastrophic fractures.

Results

Margin quality after three million cycles revealed medians for continuous margin of 82–95% without significant differences among groups, neither at the ceramic/composite (p = 0.943) nor at the tooth/composite interface (p = 0.571). Visual inspection of veneers exhibited 22 cracks, 11 chippings, 4 partial and 4 catastrophic fractures in 38 of 80 veneers. The statistical ranking regarding fracture risk (p ≤ 0.05) was: IL1 = SIL1 = MIL1 = IL2 = CL1 = CL2, MIL2 = NPL1 = NPL2 = SIL2, IL2 = CL1 = CL2 = MIL2 = NPL1 = NPL2 = SIL2.

Conclusions

Even after three million cycles with up to 100 N, all groups showed high survival rates. However, the fracture risk increases with thin veneers and preparations with medium to high dentin portions when compared to thicker veneers with preparations in enamel or partially in dentin (p ≤ 0.05). Preexisting resin composite restorations did not show any significant influence on margin quality and facture risk (p > 0.05).

Clinical relevance

Ceramic laminate veneers are extremely durable with thin veneers and substantial enamel loss being main risk factors for fracture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guess PC, Selz CF, Voulgarakis A, Stampf S, Stappert CF (2014) Prospective clinical study of press-ceramic overlap and full veneer restorations: 7-year results. Int J Prosthodont 27:355–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M (2013) Randomized clinical trial of indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers: up to 3-year follow-up. J Adhes Dent 15:181–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rinke S, Lange K, Ziebolz D (2013) Retrospective study of extensive heat-pressed ceramic veneers after 36 months. J Esthet Restor Dent 25:42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Layton D, Walton T (2007) An up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont 20:389–396

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaini FJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM (1997) Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation over a period of 6.5 years. J Oral Rehabil 24:553–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiedhahn K, Kerschbaum T, Fasbinder DF (2005) Clinical long-term results with 617 Cerec veneers: a nine-year report. Int J Comput Dent 8:233–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peumans M, DeMunck 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 

  9. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R (2000) Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 13:Spec No:60D-76D

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Meerbeek B (2010) Dentin/enamel bonding. J Esthet Restor Dent 22:157

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA (2002) Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87:503–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Magne P, Douglas WH (1999) Porcelain veneers: dentin bonding optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown. Int J Prosthodont 12:111–121

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. da Cunha LF, Reis R, Santana L, Romanini JC, Carvalho RM, Furuse AY (2013) Ceramic veneers with minimum preparation. Eur J Dent 7:492–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Petridis HP, Zekeridou A, Malliari M, Tortopidis D, Koidis P (2012) Survival of ceramic veneers made of different materials after a minimum follow-up period of five years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent 7:138–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Karlsson S, Landahl I, Stegersjo G, Milleding P (1992) A clinical evaluation of ceramic laminate veneers. Int J Prosthodont 6:447–451

    Google Scholar 

  19. Runnacles P, Correr GM, Baratto FF, Gonzaga CC, Furuse AY (2014) Degree of conversion of a resin cement light-cured through ceramic veneers of different thicknesses and types. Braz Dent J 25:38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jankar AS, Kale Y, Kangane S, Ambekar A, Sinha M, Chaware S (2014) Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of ceramic veneer with three different incisal design preparations - an in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health 6:48–54

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ozturk E, Bolay S, Hickel R, Ilie N (2014) Influence of ceramic thickness and type on micromechanical properties of light-cured adhesive bonding agents. Acta Odontol Scand 72:543–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Akoglu B, Gemalmaz D (2011) Fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthodont 20:380–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chaiyabutr Y, Phillips KM, Ma PS, Chitswe K (2009) Comparison of load-fatigue testing of ceramic veneers with two different preparation designs. Int J Prosthodont 22:573–575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Christgau M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Edelmann K (1999) Marginal adaptation of heat-pressed glass-ceramic veneers to class III composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 24:233–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AH, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC (2000) Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent 83:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frankenberger R, Hehn J, Hajtó J, Krämer N, Naumann M, Koch A, Roggendorf MJ (2013) Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of ceramic inlays in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 17:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thonemann B, Schmalz G, Brandenstein S, Hiller KA (1994) Randspaltverhalten von Keramikinlays mit Dentinadhäsiven in vitro. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 49:840–844

    Google Scholar 

  28. Magne P, Magne M (2008) Use of additive wax-up and direct intraoral mock-up for enamel preservation with laminate porcelain veneers. Int J Esthet Dent 1:10–19

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steinhauser HC, Turssi CP, Franca FM, Amaral FM, Basting RT (2014) Micro-shear bond strength and surface micromorphology of a feldspathic ceramic treated with different cleaning methods after hydrofluoric acid etching. J Appl Oral Sci 22:85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martins ME, Leite FP, Queiroz JR, Vanderlei AD, Reskalla HN, Ozcan M (2012) Does the ultrasonic cleaning medium affect the adhesion of resin cement to feldspathic ceramic? J Adhes Dent 14:507–509

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roulet JF, Reich T, Blunck U, Noack MJ (1989) Quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope. Scanning Microsc 3:147–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heintze SD (2007) Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength II The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent 9:77–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Heintze SD (2013) Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation. Dent Mater 29:59–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt KL, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosentritt M, Sawaljanow A, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Preis V (2015) Effect of tooth brush abrasion and thermo-mechanical loading on direct and indirect veneer restorations. Clin Oral Investig 19:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bergoli CD, Meira JB, Valandro LF, Bottino MA (2014) Survival rate, load to fracture, and finite element analysis of incisors and canines restored with ceramic veneers having varied preparation design. Oper Dent 39:530–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Faus-Matoses I, Sola-Ruiz F (2014) Dental preparation with sonic vs high-speed finishing: analysis of microleakage in bonded veneer restorations. J Adhes Dent 16:29–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R (2010) Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. Dent Mater 26:1113–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B (2009) Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig 13:317–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Frankenberger R, Roth S, Krämer N, Pelka M, Petschelt A (2003) Effect of preparation mode on class II resin composite repair. J Oral Rehabil 30:559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, CharitéCentrum for Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Assmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany

    Uwe Blunck & Sabine Fischer

  2. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics, and Pediatric Dentistry, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Campus Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany

    Sabine Fischer & Roland Frankenberger

  3. Munich, Germany

    Jan Hajtó & Stefan Frei

Authors
  1. Uwe Blunck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sabine Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Hajtó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Frei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roland Frankenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Frankenberger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

UB declares that he received research grants from the companies Ivoclar, Dentsply, Kerr, Kulzer, 3M, and GC. RF declares that he received research grants from the companies 3M, Dentsply, Kulzer, Ivoclar, ADS, Kettenbach, and GC. UB declares that he received speaker honorarium from the companies Ivoclar, GC, Kulzer, and GC. RF declares that he received speaker honorarium of the companies Ivoclar, Kulzer, 3M, and Dentsply. JH, SF, and SFi have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed involving human waste were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blunck, U., Fischer, S., Hajtó, J. et al. Ceramic laminate veneers: effect of preparation design and ceramic thickness on fracture resistance and marginal quality in vitro. Clin Oral Invest 24, 2745–2754 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03136-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03136-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation