Author:
Yu Feifei,Xiang Fangyue,Zhao Jing,Lin Nengjie,Sun Zhe,Zheng Yuanna
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Self-glazed zirconia (SZ) restorations are made by a novel additive three-dimensional gel deposition approach, which are suitable for a straightforward completely digital workflow. SZ has recently been used as minimally invasive veneer, but its clinical outcomes have not been clarified yet. This study aimed to evaluate the preliminary clinical outcomes of SZ veneers compared with the widely used lithium disilicate glass–ceramic veneers made by either pressing (PG) or milling (MG) process.
Methods
Fifty-six patients treated with SZ, PG, and MG veneers by 2 specialists between June 2018 and October 2022 were identified. Patients were recalled for follow-up at least 1 year after restoration. Clinical outcomes were assessed by 2 independent evaluators according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS), and analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Chi-square test was applied to compare the difference in the success and survival rates among the 3 groups.
Results
A total of 51 patients restored with 45 SZ, 40 PG, and 41 MG veneers completed the study, with a patient dropout rate of 8.9%. Mean and standard deviation of follow-up period was 35.0 ± 14.7 months. All restorations performed well at baseline, except for 2 SZ veneers with mismatched color (rated Bravo). During follow-up, marginal discrepancy (rated Bravo) was found in 4 MG veneers and 1 PG veneer, and partially fractured (rated Charlie) was found in another 2 PG veneers. The survival rate of SZ, PG, and MG veneers was 100%, 95%, and 100%, with a success rate of 95.56%, 92.50%, and 90.24%, respectively, none of which were significantly different (p = 0.099 and 0.628, respectively). The mean VAS score of SZ, PG, and MG was 95.00 ± 1.57, 93.93 ± 2.40, and 94.89 ± 2.00 respectively, without significant difference (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
SZ veneers exhibited comparable preliminary clinical outcomes to PG and MG veneers, which could be considered as a feasible option for minimally invasive restorative treatment.
Funder
Project of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference49 articles.
1. Farias-Neto A, de Medeiros FCD, Vilanova L, Chaves MS, de Araújo JJFB. Tooth preparation for ceramic veneers: when less is more. Int J Esthet Dent. 2019;14(2):156–64.
2. Thomas MS, Pralhad S, Basaiwala AK. Concept of Minimally Invasive Indirect Veneers. N Y State Dent J. 2017;83(3):32–6.
3. Araujo E, Perdigao J. Anterior Veneer Restorations - An Evidence-based Minimal-Intervention Perspective. J Adhes Dent. 2021;23(2):91–110.
4. Edelhoff D, Liebermann A, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF. Minimally invasive treatment options in fixed prosthodontics. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(3):207–16.
5. Essam N, Soltan H, Attia A. Influence of thickness and surface conditioning on fracture resistance of occlusal veneer. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):258.