sdj-10100

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Veneers Made at Kurdistan Board of Restorative Dentistry/ Sulaymaniyah Center; A Retrospective Study

Pinar Y. Raof* , Abdulsalam R. Alzahawi**

*Kurdistan Board for Medical specialties, faculty of dental specialties, restorative dentistry, Sulaimani, Iraq.

**Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Sulaimani University, Sulaimani, Iraq.

Submitted: 26/12/2019; Accepted: 18/02/2020; Published 01/06/2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10100

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate veneers made at Kurdistan board of restorative dentistry/ Sulaymaniyah center, regarding their mechanical (debonding, marginal adaptation, and fracture of restorations), biological (gingival index, gingival recession, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries), and esthetical (color matching, with marginal discoloration) qualities.

Methods: One hundred and ten units of veneers applied to 15 patients were selected and evaluated according to clinical evaluation parameters from modified United States public health service criteria (USPHS) and FDI criteria. After signing informed consent, each patient was recalled and had the mechanical, biological, and esthetic aspects of their veneers clinically examined by the dental mirror, sharp explorer, periodontal probe, and visual inspection.

Results: Overall, the veneers made at the Kurdistan board of restorative dentistry/ Sulaymaniyah center were considered to be successful restorations with a high survival rate (97.2%) as only three veneers were found to have failed. And most of the patients, n= 94 (85.4%), were very satisfied with the color of their restorations. A total of 45 units of veneers (40.9%) were found to have mild gingivitis, while 14 units of veneers (12.7%) were found to have postoperative sensitivity. Only seven units of veneers (6.3%) were found to have secondary caries.

Conclusions: Veneers made and fitted in the Kurdistan board of restorative dentistry/ Sulaymaniyah center were found to have an acceptable prognosis and longevity regarding their success rate and patient satisfaction.

Keywords: Clinical Evaluations, Veneers, Mechanical, Biological, Esthetical outcomes. Full Article - PDF

References:

1. Morita RK, Hayashida MF, Pupo YM, Berger G, Reggiani RD, Betiol EAG. Minimally invasive laminate veneers: clinical aspects in treatment planning and cementation procedures. Case Rep Dent. 2016;2016:1-3.

2. Morimoto S, Albanesi R, Sesma N, Agra C, Braga M. Main clinical outcomes of feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and complication rates. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;21(1):38-49.

3. Radz GM. Minimum thickness anterior porcelain restorations. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(2):353- 70.

4. Fradeani M, Redemagni M., Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6 to 12-year clinical evaluation - A retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005;25(1):9-17.

5. Melo Sá TC, Figueiredo de Carvalho MF, M. de Sá JC, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Yamauti M. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth with different thicknesses of porcelain laminate veneers: An 8-year follow-up clinical evaluation. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(4):590-93.

6. Alhekeir DF, Al-Sarhan RA, Al Mashaan AF. Porcelain laminate veneers: clinical survey for evaluation of failure. Saudi Dent J. 2014;26(2):63- 7.

7. Monaraks R, Leevailoj C. The longevity of ceramic veneers: clinical evaluation of mechanical, biologic and aesthetic performances of ceramic veneers, a 7-year retrospective study. J Dent Assoc Thai. 2018;68(3):288-301.

8. Marco MM. Gresnigt, Mutlu Ozcan, Warner Kalk. Clinical longevity of ceramic laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without existing composite restorations up to 40 months. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(3):823-32.

9. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Five-year clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(4):211-21.

10. Dumfahrt H, Schäffer H. 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.

11. Calamia JR, Calamia CS. Porcelain laminate veneers: reasons for 25 years of success. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(2):399-417.

12. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2012;25(1):79-85.

13. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2000;28(3):163-77.

14. Granell-Ruiz M, Agustin-Panadero R, Fons-Font A, Roman-Rodriguez JL, Sola-Ruiz MF. Influence of bruxism on survival of porcelain laminate veneers. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19(5):426-32.

15. Guess PC, Stappert CF. Midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical investigation of extended ceramic veneers. Dent Mater J. 2008;24(6):804- 13.

16. Guess PC, Schultheis S, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Ferencz JL, Silva NR. All-ceramic systems: laboratory and clinical performance. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(2):333-52.

17. Gurel G, Morimoto S, Calamita MA, Coachman C, Sesma N. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers: outcomes of the aesthetic pre- evaluative temporary (APT) technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012;32(6):625- 35.

18. Ross W. Nash. Porcelain Veneers. Contemporary esthetic dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 2012.459 p.

19. Reid JS, Kinane DF, Adonogianaki E. Gingival health associated with porcelain veneers on maxillary incisors. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1991;1(3):137-41.

20. Granell-Ruiz M, Fons-Font A, Labiga-Rueda C, Matinez-Gonzalez A, Roman-RodriguzeJL, Sola- Ruiz MF. A clinical longuitudinal study 323 porcelain laminate veneers. period of study from 3 to 11 yaers. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(3):531-7.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.