Fracture Resistance of Composite Veneers with Different Preparation Designs

Download Article

1 / Ljuben Guguvcevski2 / Risto Popovski3 / Cena Dimova4 / Ana Minovska4 / Aneta Mijoska2

1Faculty of Medical Sciences–Dental medicine University “GoceDelcev” Stip, KrsteMisirkov bb, 2000 Stip, FYROM
2Department for Prosthodontic Faculty of Stomatology University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” Skopje, FYROM
3Faculty of Natural and Technical Sciences University “GoceDelcev” Stip, FYROM
4Faculty of Medical Sciences–Dental medicine University “GoceDelcev” Stip, FYROM

Summary

Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the fracture load of composite veneers using three different preparation designs. Material and methods: Fifteen extracted, intact, human maxillary central incisors were selected. Teeth were divided into three groups with different preparation design: 1) feather preparation, 2) bevel preparation, and 3) incisal overlap- palatal chamfer. Teeth were restored with composite veneers, and the specimens were loaded to failure. The localization of the fracture was recorded as incisal, gingival or combined. Results: Composite veneers with incisal overlap – palatal chamfer showed higher fracture resistance compared to feather preparation and bevel preparation. The mean (SD) fracture loads were: Group 1: 100.6±8.0 N, Group 2: 107.4±6.8 N, and Group 3: 122.0±8.8 N. The most common mode of failure was debonding for veneers with feather preparation and fracture when incisal edge is reduced. The most frequent localization of fracture was incisal. Conclusion: The type of preparation has a significant effect on fracture load for composite veneers. This study indicates that using an incisal overlap- palatal chamfer preparation design significantly increases the fracture resistance compared to feather and bevel preparation designs.

Keywords: composite veneers; preparation design; fracture resistance

References

  1. Magne P, Perroud R, Hodges JS, Belser UC. Clinical performance of novel-design porcelain veneers for the rec Gemalmazovery of coronal volume and length. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2000; 20:440-457.
  2. Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation-a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2005; 25:9-17.
  3. Dikova T, Abadjiev M, Balcheva M. Clinical application of the contemporary nano-materials (part 1 – laboratory composites). J of IMAB, 2009; 2:67-70.
  4. Magne P, Douglas WH. Additive contour of porcelain veneers: a key element in enamel preservation, adhesion, and esthetics for aging dentition. J Adhes Dent, 1999; 1:81-92.
  5. Friedman MJ. Porcelain veneer restorations: a clinician’s opinion about a disturbing trend. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2001;13:318-327. [Crossref]
  6. Fahl N. The direct/indirect composite resin veneers: a case report. Int Aesthet Chro, 1996; 8:627-638.
  7. Covey DA, Tahaney SR, Davenport JM. Mechanical properties of heat-treated composite resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent, 1992; 68:458-461. [Crossref]
  8. Rueggeberg FA. Substrate for adhesion testing to tooth structure- review of the literature. Dent Mater, 1991; 7:2-10. [Crossref]
  9. Sadighpour L, Geramipanah F, Allahyari S, Sichani BF, Fard MJK. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance and microleakage of porcelain laminate veneers bonded to teeth with composite fillings after cyclic loading. J Adv Prosthodont, 2014; 6:278-284. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  10. Alghazzavi T, Lemons J, Liu P, Essig M, Janowski G. The failure load of CAD/CAM generated zirconia and glassceramic laminate veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthet Dent, 2012; 108:386-393. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  11. D’Souza, Kumar M. Esthetics and Biocompatibility of Composite Dental Laminates. MJAFI 2010; 66:239-243.
  12. Ramandeep, Dhillon JS, Passi S, Raghav, Chhabra A. Effect of reinforcement on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars by various bonded restorations -an in vitro study. DJAS, 2015; 3:103-111.
  13. Li Z, Yang Z, Zuo L, Meng Y. A three-dimensional finite element study on anterior laminate veneers with different incisal preparations. J Prosthet Dent, 2014; 112:325-333. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  14. Meijering AC, Creugers NH, Roeters FJ, Mulder J. Survival of three types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: A 2.5 year interim evaluation. J Dent, 1998; 26:563-568. [Crossref]
  15. Mirra G, El-Mahalawy S. Fracture Strength and Microleakage of Laminate Veneers. Cairo Dent J, 2009; 25:245-254.
  16. Christensen GJ, Christensen RP. Clinical observations of porcelain veneers: A three-year report. J Esthet Dent, 1991; 3:174-179.
  17. Shetty A, Kaiwar A, Shubhashini N, Ashwini P, Naveen DN, Adarsha MS et al. Survival rates of porcelain laminate restoration based on different incisal preparation designs: An analysis. J Conserv Dent, 2011; 14:10-15.
  18. Smales RJ, Etemadi S. Long term survival of porcelain laminate veneers using two preparation designs: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont, 2004; 17:323-326.
  19. Highton R, Caputo AA, Mátyás J. A photo-elastic study of stresses on porcelain laminate preparations. J Prosthet Dent, 1987; 58:157-161. [Crossref]
  20. Magne P, Douglas WH. Design optimization and evolution of bonded ceramics for anterior dentition: Finite Element Analysis. Quintessence Int, 1999; 30:661-672.
  21. Zarone F, Apicella D, Sorrentino R, Ferro V, Aversa R, Apicella A. Influence of tooth preparation design on the stress distribution in maxillary central incisors restored by means of alumina porcelain veneers: A 3d-finite element analysis. Dent Mater, 2005; 21:1178-1188. [Crossref]
  22. Jankar AS, Kale Y, Kangane S, Ambekar A, Sinha M, Chaware S. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of Ceramic Veneer with three different incisal design preparations – An In-vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2014; 6:48-54.
  23. Chaiyabutr Y, Phillips K.M, Polly S Ma. Comparison of load-fatigue testing of ceramic veneers with two different preparation designs. Int J Prosthodont, 2009; 22:573-575.
  24. Schmidt KK, Chiayabutr Y, Phillips KM, Kois JC. Influence of preparation design and existing condition of tooth structure on load to failure of ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent, 2011; 105:374-382. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  25. Akoglu B, Gemalmaz D. Fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthodont, 2011; 20:380-384.
  26. Magne P, Versluis A, Douglas WH. Effect of luting composite shrinkage & thermal stress distribution in porcelain laminates veneers. J Prosthet Dent, 1999; 81:335-344. [Crossref]
  27. Hussain F, Al-Huwaizi B.D.S. A finite element analysis of the effect of different margin designs and loading positions on stress concentration in porcelain veneers. J Coll Dentistry, 2005; 17:8-12.
  28. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AH, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent, 2000; 83:171-180 [Crossref]
  29. Wall JG, Johnston WM. Incisal edge strength of porcelain laminate veneers restoring mandibular incisors. Int J Prostohdont, 1992; 5:441-446.
  30. Faunce FR, Myers DR. Laminate veneer restorations of permanent incisors. J Am Dent Assoc, 1976; 93:790-792. [Crossref]
Citation Information: Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 99–103, ISSN (Online) 2335-0245, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjdm-2016-0016, July 2016

COMMENTS