Randomized Clinical Trial on Direct Composite and Indirect Ceramic Laminate Veneers in Multiple Diastema Closure Cases: Two-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

In recent years, laminate veneer restorations should be considered as a minimally invasive treatment option for several aesthetic reasons. This study compared direct composite veneers’ and indirect ceramic laminate veneers’ longevity in multiple diastema closures. A total of 28 patients with a mean age of 26 years received 60 direct resin composite (Estelite Asteria; n = 14) and 60 indirect ceramic veneers (IPS e.max Press; n = 14) on the maxillary anterior teeth with diastema closure. Veneers were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months for up to 2 years using USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests, while Kaplan–Meier curve was used to assess time to event. In total, three failures were observed in the form of debonding (n = 1) and fracture (n = 2) in the indirect ceramic veneers. No significant difference was observed between the survival rates of composite and ceramic veneers (Estelite Asteria: 93.4%, IPS e.max Press: 95%; p > 0.05). The overall survival rate was 94.2% (Kaplan–Meier). Staining (n = 11) and roughness (n = 14) were frequently observed for the resin composite veneers up to the final recall. Thereby, the preliminary results from this clinical trial comparing two veneer materials indicated that their survival rates were statistically similar. However, surface quality changes were more frequent in the composite veneer material.

Keywords

• randomized clinical trial
• glass ceramics
• direct composite
• veneers
• diastema closure