International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2025)
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2025 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Survival and Failure Rates of Lithium Disilicate Veneers: A Systematic Review

Vidulasri N, Ashok Leburu, Madhuram K, Naveen Kumar V

Keywords : Failure rate, Lithium disilicate veneers, Preparation design, Survival rate, Systematic review

Citation Information : N V, Leburu A, K M, V NK. Survival and Failure Rates of Lithium Disilicate Veneers: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2025; 15 (1):60-66.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1489

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2025; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the present systematic review was to assess the clinical survival and failure rates of lithium disilicate (LDS) veneers in the anterior region. Materials and methods: An electronic search was undertaken in June 2024, with the search carried out from 2010 to 2024. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Patients rehabilitated with LDS veneers and with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) of veneers was calculated, considering fracture, debonding, and the need for endodontic treatment. Failure rates between preparations with or without incisal coverage, type of preparation design, and fabrication method were compared using the log-rank test (Kaplan–Meier). The risk of bias (RoB) assessment of studies was evaluated using ROB Software 2.0. Results: Sixteen studies were included with 5,891 LDS veneers. The 10-year estimated CSR of LDS veneers was 98.3%, when fracture, debonding, and the need for endodontic treatment were considered together as reasons for failure. The 10-year CSR for fracture was 98.3%, debonding was 99.3%, and the need for endodontic treatment was 99.6%. LDS veneers with butt joint preparations had a higher failure rate than veneers with incisal coverage. Feather/knife-edge preparations had a higher success rate than chamfer preparations. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled and heat-pressed methods both provided superior quality restorations with increased survival (99%) in milled restorations. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that the 10-year estimated CSR of LDS veneers was 98.3%, when fracture, debonding, and the need for endodontic treatment were considered as reasons for failure. This proves the point that LDS material can be used as a veneer material in the long term with improved esthetic and quality restorations.

PDF Share
  1. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Adhesive Metal-Free Restorations: Current Concepts for the Esthetic Treatment of Posterior Teeth. Chicago: Quintessence, 1997.
  2. Layton D, Walton T. An up to the 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:389–396. PMID: 17695870.
  3. Chen JH, Shi CX, Wang M, et al. Clinical evaluation of 546 tetracycline-stained teeth treated with porcelain laminate veneers. J Dent 2005;33:3–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.06.008
  4. Gürel G. Predictable, precise, and repeatable tooth preparation for porcelain laminate veneers. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003;15:17–24. PMID: 12680057.
  5. Gürel G. Porcelain laminate veneers: minimal tooth preparation by design. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:419–431. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2007.03.007
  6. El-Mowafy O, Brochu JF. Longevity and clinical performance of IPS-empress ceramic restorations—a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 2002;68:233–237. PMID: 12626277.
  7. Gurel G, Sesma N, Calamita MA, et al. Influence of enamel preservation on failure rates of porcelain laminate veneers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:31–39. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1488
  8. Calamia JR. Etched porcelain veneers: the current state of the art. Quintessence Int 1985;16:5–12. PMID: 3883393.
  9. Wiedhahn K, Kerschbaum Th, Fasbinder DF. Clinical long-term results with 617 CEREC veneers: a nine-year report. Int J Comput Dent 2005;8(3):233–246. PMID: 16416936.
  10. Denry IL, Peacock JJ, Holloway JA. Effect of heat treatment after accelerated aging on phase transformation in 3Y-TZP. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;93(1):236–243. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31580
  11. Giordano R. A comparison of all-ceramic restorative systems. J Mass Dent Soc 2002;50(4):16–20. PMID: 12874908.
  12. Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, et al. A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:65–76. PMID: 15119590.
  13. Petridis HP, Zekeridou A, Malliari M, et al. Survival of ceramic veneers made of different materials after a minimum follow-up period of five years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent 2012;7:138–152. PMID: 22645729.
  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71
  15. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
  16. Fabbri G, Zarone F, Dellificorelli G, et al. Clinical evaluation of 860 anterior and posterior lithium disilicate restorations: retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 3 years and a maximum observational period of 6 years. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34(2):165–177. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1769
  17. Yang Y, Yu J, Gao J, et al. Clinical outcomes of different types of tooth-supported bilayer lithium disilicate all-ceramic restorations after functioning up to 5 years: a retrospective study. J Dent 2016;51:56–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.013
  18. Karagözoğlu İ, Toksavul S, Toman M. 3D quantification of clinical marginal and internal gap of porcelain laminate veneers with minimal and without tooth preparation and 2-year clinical evaluation. Quintessence Int 2016;47(6):461–471. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35700
  19. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Amjadi M, et al. Five year clinical outcomes and survival of chairside CAD/CAM ceramic laminate veneers—a retrospective study. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(4):462–467. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.05.004
  20. Aslan YU, Uludamar A, Özkan Y. Clinical performance of pressable glass-ceramic veneers after 5, 10, 15, and 20 years: a retrospective case series study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31(5):415–422. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12496
  21. Imburgia M, Cortellini D, Valenti M. Minimally invasive vertical preparation design for ceramic veneers: a multicenter retrospective follow-up clinical study of 265 lithium disilicate veneers. Int J Esthet Dent 2019;14(3):286–298. PMID: 31312814.
  22. Aslan YU, Uludamar A, Özkan Y. Retrospective analysis of lithium disilicate laminate veneers applied by experienced dentists: 10-year results. Int J Prosthodont 2019;32(6):471–474. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6234
  23. Malchiodi L, Zotti F, Moro T, et al. Clinical and esthetical evaluation of 79 lithium disilicate multilayered anterior veneers with a medium follow-up of 3 years. Eur J Dent 2019;13:581–588. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700371
  24. Rocha EP, Anchieta RB, da Cunha Melo RA, et al. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive ceramic restorations executed by dentists with different levels of experience. Blind and prospective clinical study. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65(2):191–197. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_483
  25. Imburgia M, Lerner H, Mangano F. A retrospective clinical study on 1075 lithium disilicate CAD/CAM veneers with feather-edge margins cemented on 105 patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021;29(1):54–63. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_2248Mangano10
  26. Lempel E, Németh KG, Lovász BV, et al. Adhesive management of anterior tooth wear in combination with the Dahl Concept-A 27-month observational case series. Oper Dent 2021;46(6):594–608. DOI: 10.2341/20-190
  27. Soares-Rusu I, Villavicencio-Espinoza CA, de Oliveira NA, et al. Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate veneers manufactured by CAD/CAM compared with heat-pressed methods: randomized controlled clinical trial. Oper Dent 2021;46(1):4–14. DOI: 10.2341/19-233-C
  28. Demirekin ZB, Turkaslan S. Laminate veneer ceramics in aesthetic rehabilitation of teeth with fluorosis: a 10-year follow-up study. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):42. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02079-4
  29. Sen N, Olley RC. Retrospective evaluation of factors affecting long-term clinical performance of CAD-CAM laminate veneers. Int J Prosthodont 2024;37(4):411–416. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.8499
  30. Fawakhiri HA, Abboud S, Kanout S. A 3-year controlled clinical trial comparing high-translucency zirconia (cubic zirconia) with lithium disilicate glass ceramic (e.max). Clin Exp Dent Res 2023;9:1078–1088. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.790
  31. Yu F, Xiang F, Zhao J, et al. Clinical outcomes of self-glazed zirconia veneers produced by 3D gel deposition: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2024;24(1):457. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04253-2
  32. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):215–232. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
  33. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30(4):347–358. PMID: 6935165.
  34. Baran G, Boberick K, McCool J. Fatigue of restorative materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001;12:350–360. DOI: 10.1177/10454411010120040501
  35. Ferguson JG. Life tables for clinical scientists. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1992;3:607–615. DOI: 10.1016/s1051-0443(92)72904-2
  36. Chai SY, Bennani V, Aarts JM, et al. Incisal preparation design for ceramic veneers: a critical review. J Am Dent Assoc 2018;149:25–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.08.031
  37. Loguercio AD, Moura SK, Pellizzaro A, et al. Durability of enamel bonding using two-step self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Oper Dent 2008;33:79–88. DOI: 10.2341/07-42
  38. Abid SE, Mohammed KG, The effect of preparation design on stress distribution in lithium disilicate laminate veneer using 3D finite element analysis. Open Dent J 2023;17. DOI: 10.2174/0118742106243827230921095501
  39. Zarone F, Apicella D, Sorrentino R, et al. 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(12):1178–1188. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.014
  40. Meirelles LCF, Pierre FZ, Tribst JPM, et al. Influence of preparation design, restorative material and load direction on the stress distribution of ceramic veneer in upper central incisor. Braz Dent Sci 2021;24(3):1–15. DOI: 10.14295/bds.2021.v24i3.2494
  41. Imburgia M, Canale A, Cortellini D, et al. Minimally invasive vertical preparation design for ceramic veneers. Int J Esthet Dent 2016;11(4):460–471. PMID: 27730217.
  42. Hallmann L, Ulmer P, Kern M. Effect of microstructure on the mechanical properties of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;82:355–370. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.032
  43. Guess PC, Vagkopoulou T, Zhang Y, et al. Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue. J Dent 2014;42(2):199–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.002
  44. Willard A, Gabriel Chu T-M. The science and application of IPS e.Max dental ceramic. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018;34(4):238–242. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2018.01.012
  45. Alenezi A, Alsweed M, Alsidrani S, et al. Long-term survival and complication rates of porcelain laminate veneers in clinical studies: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021;10(5):1074. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10051074
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.