Article

Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains.

Department of Biomaterials Science, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2004; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004347.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients with discoloured teeth frequently present to the dentist requesting restorations designed to improve their appearance. For teeth that are sound, this might include the use of a veneer restoration. The veneer acts as a thin layer of a material covering the labial surface of a tooth and can be applied directly to the tooth, or by using indirect methods.
To examine the effectiveness of direct versus indirect laminate veneer restorations.
The following electronic databases were searched: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1980 to 19/11/2002) and EMBASE (1980 to 19/11/2002). There was no restriction on language.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with permanent anterior teeth suitable for restorations using laminate veneers, comparing direct (different composite materials) and indirect techniques for making dental veneers. The indirect restorations may be either composite or porcelain. The primary outcome was restoration failure.
Assessment of relevance and validity and data extraction were conducted in triplicate. Authors of the primary studies were contacted to provide additional information as necessary.
Six full publications were screened as being potentially relevant to the review, only one trial was found to meet the review's inclusion criteria. Although the trial met the review's inclusion criteria with regard to participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes assessed, problems with the reporting of the data prevented any statistical analysis of the results.
There is no reliable evidence to show a benefit of one type of veneer restoration (direct or indirect) over the other with regard to the longevity of the restoration.

1 Follower
 · 
66 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 (2 0 0 7) 927–933 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . i n t l . e l s e v i e r h e a l t h . c o m / j o u r n a l s / d e m a Particulate filler composites Veneers a b s t r a c t Objectives. This study compared the fracture strength of direct and indirect resin composite laminate veneers and evaluated the effect of a bidirectional E-glass woven fiber application at different locations at the cementation interface. Methods. Standard preparations on canines (N = 50, 10 per group) were made using a depth cutting bur (0.7 mm depth) designed for laminate veneer restorations. Forty indirect lami-nates using a highly filled polymeric material (Estenia) and 10 direct laminates (Quadrant Anterior Shine) were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions. Bidirectional E-glass woven-fiber sheet (0.06 mm) (Everstick) was applied at different locations at the cementation interface. The control group received no fibers. The specimens were stored in water at 37 • C for 1 month prior to fracture testing performed in a universal testing machine where the load was applied from the incisal direction at 137 • (1 mm/min). Results. No significant differences were found between the five groups (P > 0.01) (one-way ANOVA). While indirect laminate veneers showed mean fracture strength of 247 ± 47 N, direct laminate veneers revealed 239 ± 104 N. The use of E-glass fibers at the cementation interface at different locations did not increase the fracture strength significantly (286–313 N) (P > 0.01). Failure analysis showed mainly cohesive fracture of the veneer restoration (20/50) and adhesive failure between the cementation interface and the laminate with fiber expo-sure (19/50) covering more than half of the restorations. Significance. Direct and indirect resin composite laminate veneers showed comparable mean fracture strengths. The use of E-glass woven-fiber sheet at the cementation interface did not increase the fracture strength of the polymeric laminate veneers.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 (2 0 0 7) 927–933 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . i n t l . e l s e v i e r h e a l t h . c o m / j o u r n a l s / d e m a Particulate filler composites Veneers a b s t r a c t Objectives. This study compared the fracture strength of direct and indirect resin composite laminate veneers and evaluated the effect of a bidirectional E-glass woven fiber application at different locations at the cementation interface. Methods. Standard preparations on canines (N = 50, 10 per group) were made using a depth cutting bur (0.7 mm depth) designed for laminate veneer restorations. Forty indirect lami-nates using a highly filled polymeric material (Estenia) and 10 direct laminates (Quadrant Anterior Shine) were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions. Bidirectional E-glass woven-fiber sheet (0.06 mm) (Everstick) was applied at different locations at the cementation interface. The control group received no fibers. The specimens were stored in water at 37 • C for 1 month prior to fracture testing performed in a universal testing machine where the load was applied from the incisal direction at 137 • (1 mm/min). Results. No significant differences were found between the five groups (P > 0.01) (one-way ANOVA). While indirect laminate veneers showed mean fracture strength of 247 ± 47 N, direct laminate veneers revealed 239 ± 104 N. The use of E-glass fibers at the cementation interface at different locations did not increase the fracture strength significantly (286–313 N) (P > 0.01). Failure analysis showed mainly cohesive fracture of the veneer restoration (20/50) and adhesive failure between the cementation interface and the laminate with fiber expo-sure (19/50) covering more than half of the restorations. Significance. Direct and indirect resin composite laminate veneers showed comparable mean fracture strengths. The use of E-glass woven-fiber sheet at the cementation interface did not increase the fracture strength of the polymeric laminate veneers.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate whether bleaching prior to placement of a composite veneer had an effect on the final shade of the restoration and whether this was affected by the thickness or shade of the veneer. Twenty bovine teeth were collected, sectioned and divided into two groups. One group was the non-bleached control, while the other was the bleached group. A colour reading was recorded using a spectrophotometer. The bleached group then underwent external bleaching with 38% hydrogen peroxide and a colour reading was recorded. Each of these two groups were further sub-divided into four subgroups, on which composite veneers were placed. These subgroups were: 0.5 m thick A1, 1 m thick A1, 0.5 mm thick A4 and 1 mm thick A4 composite veneers. Colour readings were recorded after veneer placement. Statistical significance was assessed using analysis of variance. There was a difference between the colour produced for the same veneer properties, between the bleached and non-bleached groups. For a thin (0.5mm) A4 veneer bleaching produced a statistically significant difference in the amount of colour change (DeltaE) compared to veneering alone. For A1, non-bleached group there is a significant difference in the DeltaE produced by altering the thickness of the veneer. Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that bleaching prior to placement of a thin A4 dark veneer produces a significant difference in colour change. If no bleaching is performed, altering the thickness of an A1 veneer produces a significant colour difference DeltaE. However, if bleaching is carried out there is no significant difference.
    Journal of Dentistry 08/2008; 36(7):554-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.004 · 2.84 Impact Factor