Survival rates of porcelain laminate restoration based on different incisal preparation designs: An analysis

BACKGROUND: Veneer restorations provide a valid conservative alternative to complete coverage as they avoid aggressive dental preparation; thus, maintaining tooth structure. Initially, laminates were placed on the unprepared tooth surface. Although there is as yet no consensus as to whether or not teeth should be prepared for laminate veneers, currently, more conservative preparations have been advocated. Because of their esthetic appeal, biocompatibility and adherence to the physiology of minimal-invasive dentistry, porcelain laminate veneers have now become a restoration of choice. Currently, there is a lack of clinical consensus regarding the type of design preferred for laminates. Widely varying survival rates and methods for its estimation have been reported for porcelain veneers over approximately 2–10 years. Relatively few studies have been reported in the literature that use survival estimates, which allow for valid study comparisons between the types of preparation designs used. No survival analysis has been undertaken for the designs used. The purpose of this article is to attempt to review the survival rates of veneers based on different incisal preparation designs from both clinical and non-clinical studies. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to review both clinical and non-clinical studies to determine the survival rates of veneers based on different incisal preparation designs. A further objective of the study is to understand which is the most successful design in terms of preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated the existing literature – survival rates of veneers based on incisal preparation designs. The search strategy involved MEDLINE, BITTORRENT and other databases. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were tabulated. Because of variability in the follow-up period in different studies, the follow-up period was extrapolated to 10 years in common for all of them. Accordingly, the failure rate was then estimated and The weighted mean was computed. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that the window preparation was of the most conservative type. Incisal coverage was better than no incisal coverage and, in incisal coverage, two predictable designs – incisal overlap and butt were reported. In butt preparation, no long-term follow-up studies have been performed as yet. In general, incisal overlap was preferred for healthy normal tooth with sufficient thickness and incisal butt preparation was preferred for worn tooth and fractured teeth.