ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2026
Marginal Fit of Three Commonly Used Veneers for Smile Enhancement: An In Vitro Study.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the marginal fit of three most commonly used veneers in dentistry. Materials and Methods: A maxillary central incisor was embedded in a self-cure acrylic resin block, with the crown and 2 mm of the root exposed to facilitate standardized tooth preparation. Following the preparation, 30 elastomeric impressions were made to produce master casts. These working dies were then randomly allocated to three experimental groups, each consisting of 15 samples. Group I comprised indirect composite veneers (ICV), fabricated using laboratory composite resin. Group II included pressable ceramic veneers (PCV), manufactured using heat-pressed lithium disilicate. Group III consisted of computer-aided designing (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) ceramic veneers, fabricated through digital milling of lithium disilicate blocks. All veneers were fabricated in accordance with the respective manufacturer's guidelines and were carefully repositioned on the prepared tooth to evaluate the marginal discrepancy using a stereomicroscope. Statistical Analysis: Three pre-designated points-mesio-labial, mid-labial, and disto-labial and mesio-palatal, mid-palatal, and disto-palatal on the labial and palatal margins-were measured. The values were recorded and analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test using SPSS software. Results: ICV showed more variation with mean discrepancy of 189.24 ± 25.17 µm at cervical margin and 79.01 ± 11.68 µm at palatal area. PCV showed less variation with mean discrepancy of 48.2 ± 8.35 µm and 40.58 ± 9.47 µm at cervical and palatal areas, respectively. CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic veneers showed mean discrepancy of 94.24 ± 9.00 µm at cervical and 52.72 ± 16.33 µm at palatal areas. Conclusions: Pressable ceramic veneers showed the best marginal fit at both cervical and palatal margins followed by CAD/CAM veneers. Indirect composite veneers showed poorest marginal fit. The marginal discrepancy values were within the clinically acceptable range for PCV and CAD/CAM ceramic veneers. Clinical Significance: It is of paramount importance that the dentist should choose wisely the veneer material taking the marginal fit into account.
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.