The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Conservative Ultrathin Veneer Restorations with Minimal Reduction: A 5-year Follow-up Report

Nicholas G Fischer, Firas Mourad, Jose Villalobos-Tinoco

Citation Information : Fischer NG, Mourad F, Villalobos-Tinoco J. Conservative Ultrathin Veneer Restorations with Minimal Reduction: A 5-year Follow-up Report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1293-1297.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2946

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-05-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This case report shows how a feldspathic veneer with diagnostic wax-ups, subsequent mock-up, and reduction guides can lead to good patient esthetics and reports a 5-year follow-up. Background: Conservative tooth preparation is important for the long-term success of adhesive dentistry as it has been shown that bonding to enamel is more predictable in obtaining better long-term success than dentin. To preserve enamel for optimal bonding, diagnostic wax-ups and the subsequent mock-up are the first tools in a restorative dentist's arsenal to find and address differences between current and ideal tooth proportions and also help toward an overall conservative approach. Reduction guides are recommended in order to provide adequate tooth reduction and prevent over-reduction. Case description: This case report shows a 5-year follow-up of feldspathic veneer restorations for a patient with excessive space among teeth, defective composite restorations on facial and incisal surfaces, and worn teeth. Veneers were delivered with conservative tooth preparation combining different tooth reduction guides. Conclusion: This case report highlights the added benefits of tooth reduction guides and diagnostic wax-ups and the subsequent mock-up for long-term patient satisfaction. Clinical significance: Conservative tooth preparation, reduction guides, and wax-ups may increase the life span of veneer restorations and demonstrate good esthetics at 5 years.

  1. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215–235.
  2. Five-year clinical evaluation of 300 teeth restored with porcelain laminate veneers using total-etch and a modified self-etch adhesive system. Oper Dent 2009;34(5):516–523. DOI: 10.2341/08-038-C.
  3. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16(3):265–273. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820160307.
  4. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: part II clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(1):9–18.
  5. A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(1):65–76.
  6. Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004(1):CD004347. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004347.pub2.
  7. Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2000;28(3):163–177. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00066-4.
  8. Effect of luting composite shrinkage and thermal loads on the stress distribution in porcelain laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):335–344. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70278-7.
  9. Crack propensity of porcelain laminate veneers: a simulated operatory evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):327–334. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70277-5.
  10. Optimization of resilience and stress distribution in porcelain veneers for the treatment of crown-fractured incisors. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19(6):543–553.
  11. Survival of ceramic veneers made of different materials after a minimum follow-up period of five years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Esth Dent 2012;7(2):138–152.
  12. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent 2012;40(3):202–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.008.
  13. In vitro microleakage at the gingival margin of porcelain and resin veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(1):7–10. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90038-c.
  14. A variety of patient factors may influence porcelain veneer survival over a 10-year period. J Evid-Based Dent Pr 2010;10(1):35–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.014.
  15. Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to enamel, dentin and enamel-dentin complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. J Dent 2013;41(2):97–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.005.
  16. Minimally invasive porcelain veneers: indications for a conservative esthetic dentistry treatment modality. Gen Dent 2007;55(7):819–826.
  17. New ceramics approach for contact lens. Odovtos-Int J Dent Sc 2015;17(1):12–18. DOI: 10.15517/ijds.v0i0.22040.
  18. Fluorapatite-leucite glass ceramic veneers for aesthetic anterior restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dentist 2001;13(1):37–41. DOI: 11301529.
  19. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;35(11):819–826. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.008.
  20. Esthetic rehabilitation with laminated ceramic veneers reinforced by lithium disilicate. Quintessence Int 2014;45(2):129–133. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a31009.
  21. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98(5):389–404. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60124-3.
  22. Which all-ceramic system is optimal for anterior esthetics? JADA 2008;139:19s–24s. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0358.
  23. Influence of enamel preservation on failure rates of porcelain laminate veneers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33(1):31–39. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1488.
  24. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):503–509. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.124094.
  25. Compressive fracture resistance of porcelain laminate bonded to enamel or dentin with four adhesive systems. J Prosthodont 2007;16(6):457–464. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00227.x.
  26. The effect of various preparation designs of the survival or porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent 2009;11(5):405–4-11.
  27. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(6):433–442. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.09.018.
  28. The diagnostic wax-up: as aid in treatment planning. Tex Dent J 1985;102(2):10–12.
  29. A systematic approach to the control of esthetic form. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35(4):393–402. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(76)90006-8.
  30. Provisional restorations: an integrated approach to periodontics and restorative Dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1980;24(2):285–303.
  31. The acrylic occlusal plane guide: a tool for esthetic occlusal reconstruction. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22(4):302–304.
  32. Clinically based diagnostic wax-up for optimal esthetics: the diagnostic mock-up. CDA J 2008;36(5):355–362.
  33. The influence of tooth color on preparation design for laminate veneers from a minimally invasive perspective: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34(4):453–459. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1900.
  34. Implant therapy with ultratranslucent monolithic zirconia restorations in the esthetic zone: a case report. Gen Dent 2020;68(1):46–49.
  35. 3D printed coping for intraoral evaluation: a clinical report. Quintessence Int 2019;50(7):534–538. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a42655.
  36. Predictable outcomes with porcelain laminate veneers: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;25(4):335–340. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12413.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.