ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Two Different Preparation Designs and Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Laminate Veneers: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Laminate veneers are thin porcelain or composite resin shells bonded to the front of teeth for cosmetic enhancement. The design of the tooth preparation is crucial; it involves minimal enamel removal to ensure a proper fit and strong bond. This careful preparation increases the veneers' fracture resistance by preserving tooth structure and evenly distributing stress, ensuring durability and natural appearance. Aim Our aim was to determine the fracture resistance of two preparation designs with two different materials for the fabrication of laminate veneers. Materials and methods An in vitro study was conducted on 40 laminate veneers divided into two groups based on the material used: Group 1 (Cerec Tessera (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA)) and Group 2 (Upcera, Shenzhen, China). Each group was further divided into two sub-groups based on tooth preparation designs: butt joint and feather edge. The fracture resistance of these veneers following thermocycling was determined, and the mode of fracture was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results Feather edge preparation with Cerec Tessera laminate veneer restoration demonstrated the highest fracture resistance at 111.5 N, followed by butt joint preparation with Cerec Tessera laminate veneer restoration, which showed a fracture resistance of 90.8 N. The study identified laminate fractures as the most common type of fracture observed in the veneer restorations, followed by cement interface fractures. Conclusion The study suggests that the feather edge preparation design contributed to higher fracture resistance compared to the butt joint design. This finding aligns with the idea that modifying the preparation design can have a significant impact on the overall strength and durability of veneer restorations. The use of Cerec Tessera, especially in combination with the feather edge design, yielded the maximum fracture resistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.