METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up assessing survival and complication rates of resin composite laminate veneers on permanent dentition from 1998 to May 2022. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases. References cited in the related reviews and included full-text articles were also hand-searched to further identify potentially relevant studies.
RESULTS: A total of 827 articles were identified. Twenty-two studies were considered for full-text review after the title and abstract screening stage. After exclusion, 7 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review. Three published scales were adopted for the quality and risk of bias assessment. At the survival rate threshold, the overall heterogeneity (I2) for randomized controlled trials was 50.5% (P = .108). The overall pooled survival rate of the randomized controlled trials was 88% (95% CI: 81%-94%), with the mean follow-up time ranging from 24 to 97 months. Surface roughness, color mismatch, and marginal discoloration were the most reported complications.
CONCLUSION: Resin composite laminate veneers demonstrated moderately high survival rates for the entire sample and the direct laminate veneer group demonstrated higher survival rates than the indirect approach. Most of the complications were regarded as clinically acceptable with or without reintervention.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the biaxial flexural strength of three core ceramic materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups of 10 disc-shaped specimens (16 mm diameter x 1.2 mm thickness - in accordance with ISO-6872, 1995) were made from the following ceramic materials: Turkom-Cera Fused Alumina [(Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn Bhd, Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia)], In-Ceram (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) and Vitadur-N (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany), which were sintered according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The specimens were subjected to biaxial flexural strength test in an universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The definitive fracture load was recorded for each specimen and the biaxial flexural strength was calculated from an equation in accordance with ISO-6872.
RESULTS: The mean biaxial flexural strength values were: Turkom-Cera: 506.8 ± 87.01 MPa, In-Ceram: 347.4 ± 28.83 MPa and Vitadur-N: 128.7 ± 12.72 MPa. The results were analyzed by the Levene's test and Dunnett's T3 post-hoc test (SPSS software V11.5.0 for Windows, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA ) at a preset significance level of 5% because of unequal group variances (P<0.001). There was statistically significant difference between the three core ceramics (P<0.05). Turkom-Cera showed the highest biaxial flexural strength, followed by In-Ceram and Vitadur-N.
CONCLUSIONS: Turkom-Cera core had significantly higher flexural strength than In-Ceram and Vitadur-N ceramic core materials.
METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.
SIGNIFICANCE: This chewing simulation test showed that Tetric EvoCeram composites exhibited a rougher surface when opposing lithium disilicate ceramic compared to opposing zirconia ceramic.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.