ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Survival and Complication Rates of Ceramic Partial Coverage Restorations (PCRs) and Ceramic Laminate Veneers Made of Different Types of Ceramics. Consensus Statement From SSRD, SEPES, and PROSEC Conference on Minimally Invasive Restorations.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis consensus paper aims to provide evidence-based insights into the survival and complication rates of ceramic partial coverage restorations (PCRs) and ceramic laminate veneers, focusing on various ceramic materials, including feldspathic ceramics, leucite-reinforced glass ceramics (LRGC), lithium disilicate ceramics (LDS), and resin matrix ceramics (RMC). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic screening of the literature identified 35 publications, which were critically reviewed based on PRISMA guidelines, resulting in two systematic reviews. Consensus statements were formulated from the findings of these reviews, addressing key clinical and material-specific considerations. These statements were subsequently refined and finalized through expert discussion, ensuring alignment with the current evidence base and clinical applicability.
resultsPCRs demonstrated high short-term survival rates, with 93.7% for LDS and 89.3% for RMC. LDS showed slightly better performance in terms of retention and fracture resistance. Ceramic laminate veneers exhibited excellent long-term survival rates across all materials, with feldspathic veneers at 96.13%, LRGC at 93.7%, and LDS at 96.81%. LDS ceramic veneers showed a significantly lower complication rate compared to feldspathic and LRGC veneers.
conclusionsBoth PCRs and ceramic laminate veneers are reliable treatment options, offering high survival rates and manageable complication profiles. Material selection and minimally invasive techniques are key to optimizing clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to implement standardized protocols for preparation, adhesive techniques, and long-term maintenance.
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.