A prospective comparative analysis of the survival rates of conventional vs no-prep/minimally invasive veneers over a mean period of 9 years

Abstract

Objectives The present study compares the survival rates of 186 conventional and no-prep/minimally invasive porcelain veneers in 35 patients over a mean period of 9 years. Materials and methods The veneers were placed on the incisors, canines, and premolars in 35 patients between January 2009 and December 2010. Fourteen patients received 84 conventional veneers, and 21 patients received 102 no-prep/minimally invasive veneers. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after every 6 months until June 2019 based on modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The data was analyzed by using Wilcoxon–Breslow–Gehan and Taron–Ware tests. Kaplan–Meier survival and success curves were plotted for two groups of veneers. The results were compared by using the log rank test. A test probability of P < .05 was regarded as significant, while a test probability of P < .01 was considered to be statistically significant. Results The mean survival rate, according to the Kaplan–Meier estimator, was 9.67% for conventional veneers and 100% for the no-prep or minimal prep veneers. A total of ten absolute failures were observed in six patients: eight restoration chipping/fractures, one debonding, and one fracturing of the tooth. Mean success rate time for conventional veneers without absolute or relative failures was 9.32 years, and 10.28 years for no-prep/minimally invasive veneers. Conclusions Over a mean observation period of 9 years, the survival rate of no-prep/minimally invasive veneers exceed that of conventional veneers. Clinical relevance No-prep/minimally invasive veneers appear very effective and should always be considered in certain clinical situations.

Effect of preparation depth on the fracture resistance of two monolithic ceramic laminate veneers

“…Shaini et al (24) in their retrospective study concerning the clinical performance of ceramic veneers, concluded that the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers was lower in cases where adhesive cementation was applied on non-prepared teeth. On the contrary, Smielak et al (25) in their prospective comparative analysis study found that the survival rate of no-prep veneers surpassed that of traditional veneers over a 9-year observation period.…”

Two‐year evaluation of porcelain laminate veneers using FDI criteria

“…Different results have been reported in the literature regarding the survival rates of PLVs. Some clinical studies have reported a high success rate (>90%) in the follow‐up examinations of PLVs (4–10 years) 2–9,12,14,19,21,27,30 . Further, Aslan et al 4 reported in their systemic review that the survival rate of PLVs was 98% at 5 years, 95% at 10 years, 91% at 15 years, and 87% at 20 years.…”

“…In addition, PLVs resist abrasion, can imitate the optical properties of enamel, and retain color stability. It has also been revealed in previous studies that PLVs have a high survival rate, with the most common reported complications being ceramic fracture, cracking, and marginal discoloration 5,12–16 …”

Digital image analysis of fluorescence of ceramic veneers with different ceramic materials and resin cements

“…Diastema closure and discoloration of the teeth, particularly the anterior teeth, using porcelain laminate veneers is a viable option for the clinician 2,3) . Clinical studies have proofed that the porcelain laminate veneers can achieve satisfactory survival rate and permanent aesthetic effect 4,5) .…”