Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of Direct versus Direct-Indirect Veneer Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Backgrounds. Marginal discoloration, microleakage, wear, and marginal fractures are all prevalent problems with composite veneers, and this scenario leads the esthetic outcome to deteriorate with time, resulting in patient discontent. Aim of the Study. The study’s goal was to determine the marginal sealing ability of composite laminate veneers when employing two types of veneer techniques: direct and direct-indirect veneers, as well as two types of composite resin: nanohybrid and microfilled composite resin restorations, using dye penetration method. Materials and Methods. In this study, forty extracted human teeth were utilized. Following a standardized veneer preparation on the labial surface of the teeth, they were separated into two groups of 20 teeth each, using the following composite application techniques: group A: direct veneers and group B: direct-indirect veneers. Following that, each major group was separated into two subgroups of ten teeth each, based on the type of composite employed: subgroup 1 used nanohybrid composite resin, while subgroup 2 used microfilled composite resin. All of the samples were kept in distilled water, thermocycled, and soaked in 2% basic fuchsine dye. These specimens were sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration at the gingival margin. The data was analyzed using independent T -tests using SPSS 22. Result. Using direct-indirect veneer technique with nanohybrid composite resin material resulted in the most negligible dye penetration at the gingival margin, while using direct veneer technique with microfilled composite resin material resulted in the maximum dye penetration. For both composite materials, gingival microleakage was lower when using the direct-indirect veneer technique than when using the direct technique, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). In both techniques, gingival microleakage was lower with nanohybrid composite than with microfilled composite, and the difference was statistically highly significant ( P = 0.001 ). Conclusion. The sealing ability of the gingival margin of tooth/composite interface is better when applying direct-indirect veneer technique with nanohybrid composite resin than that of direct veneer technique with microfilled composite resin material.

Esthetic Rehabilitation of Pediatric Patients Using Direct Bonding Technique—A Case Series Report

“…In another study, the type of composite used for the direct technique was evaluated by Mewan; he concluded that the nanohybrid composite used with an indirect–direct technique had maximum longevity compared with micro-filled composites. In both direct and indirect techniques the nanohybrid composites had decreased gingival microleakage compared with the micro-filled composites [ 20 ].…”

Semidirect Resin Composite Veneers in a Patient with Bruxism

“…Semidirect resin composite veneers, fabricated extraorally on a stone model or special impression material, offer advantages over direct resin composite veneers, such as reduced polymerization shrinkage stress, excellent marginal adaptation, superior finishing/polishing, enhanced tooth detail reproduction, and precise interproximal contact points [19]. The longevity of semidirect veneers relies on selecting suitable surface bonding treatments, adhesive systems, and resin cement [26]. While their use in posterior teeth (onlays/inlays) is well-established [27], fewer cases have been reported for anterior teeth [12].…”