IADR Abstract Archives
Composite Veneers with Different Techniques
Objectives: The objective was to compare the success rate after one year of applied composite veneers different techniques.
Methods: The participants were selected from volunteer patients of Ege University School of Dentistry. All the subjects were healthy with no periodontal disease history and were caries/restoration free on their anterior teeth. The first 15 teeth were treated with indirect composite veneer with Esthet-X HD (Dentsply DeTrey, USA) and the next 15 teeth were treated with direct composite veneer with Ceram-X Duo (Dentsply DeTrey, USA). Before the preparation, the shades were taken with SpectroShade Micro (MHT Optic Research, Niederhasli, Switzerland) device to be objective. Variolink II (Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was used for luting indirect restorations and PoGo + Enhance (Dentsply DeTrey, USA) were used for polishing. After 6 and 12 months, the restorations were assessed by two observers using modified Ryge criteria.The results were analysed using SPSS 15.0. T test and repeated measures analysis of variance were performed to compare the clinical criterias. P value was set at ≤0.05.
Results: No significant differences were observed among groups at the 6- and 12-month for any of the assessed criteria (p≥0.05) but marginal discoloration. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to anatomic contour, marginal integrity, color match, gross fracture, secondary caries at 12 months (p≥0.05). Only the marginal discoloration criteria was statistically different between two groups (p≤0.05). With respect to marginal discoloration direct technique was statistically better than indirect technique (p≤0.05).
Conclusions: According to the results of this study, direct and indirect laminate veneer techniques may be a good treatment option for patients with esthetic problems in anterior teeth. However, because of its early marginal discoloration rate and complex technique with luting, indirect techniques would remain a second option.
Methods: The participants were selected from volunteer patients of Ege University School of Dentistry. All the subjects were healthy with no periodontal disease history and were caries/restoration free on their anterior teeth. The first 15 teeth were treated with indirect composite veneer with Esthet-X HD (Dentsply DeTrey, USA) and the next 15 teeth were treated with direct composite veneer with Ceram-X Duo (Dentsply DeTrey, USA). Before the preparation, the shades were taken with SpectroShade Micro (MHT Optic Research, Niederhasli, Switzerland) device to be objective. Variolink II (Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was used for luting indirect restorations and PoGo + Enhance (Dentsply DeTrey, USA) were used for polishing. After 6 and 12 months, the restorations were assessed by two observers using modified Ryge criteria.The results were analysed using SPSS 15.0. T test and repeated measures analysis of variance were performed to compare the clinical criterias. P value was set at ≤0.05.
Results: No significant differences were observed among groups at the 6- and 12-month for any of the assessed criteria (p≥0.05) but marginal discoloration. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to anatomic contour, marginal integrity, color match, gross fracture, secondary caries at 12 months (p≥0.05). Only the marginal discoloration criteria was statistically different between two groups (p≤0.05). With respect to marginal discoloration direct technique was statistically better than indirect technique (p≤0.05).
Conclusions: According to the results of this study, direct and indirect laminate veneer techniques may be a good treatment option for patients with esthetic problems in anterior teeth. However, because of its early marginal discoloration rate and complex technique with luting, indirect techniques would remain a second option.