Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2020; 9(01): 45-52
DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_173_19
Case Report

The art of minimal tooth reduction for veneer restorations

Carlos Alberto Jurado
Division of Digital Dentistry, A.T. Still University Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Mesa, Arizona, USA
,
Jose Villalobos-Tinoco
1   Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Autonomous University of Queretaro, Queretaro, Mexico
,
Akimasa Tsujimoto
2   Department of Operative Dentistry, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan
,
Pedro Castro
3   Private Practice, Salvador, Brazil
,
Ysidora Torrealba
4   Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Alberta Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Minimal tooth reduction is crucial for the long-term success of adhesive restorations. It has been proven that bonding to enamel is more predictable in obtaining better long-term success than dentin due to its higher percentage of mineral content. The diagnostic wax-up and subsequent mock-up are the first diagnostic tools available to evaluate discrepancies between current and ideal tooth proportions. The intraoral mock-up provides the patient a tactile and visual evaluation of the size, shape, and shade of the proposed final restorations, and at the same time, the clinician can evaluate the smile line, lip support, phonetics, and occlusion. During the tooth preparation, the mock-up provides a reduction guide to the clinician to achieve the minimal required reduction for the final restoration avoiding the over-reduction and dentin exposure. This clinical report shows feldspathic veneer restorations provided with conservative tooth preparation. The long-term success of the restoration requires following well-defined protocols for restorative material selection, conservative tooth preparation, total isolation with rubber dam, and bonding ceramic protocols.

Keywords

Esthetic dentistry - isolation - prosthodontics - rubber dam - veneers

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2020. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16:265-73.
  • 2 Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P, Braem M. Dentin- and enamel-bonding agents. Curr Opin Dent 1992;2:117-27.
  • 3 Horn HR. Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enamel. Dent Clin North Am 1983;27:671-84.
  • 4 Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B. A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:65-76.
  • 5 Dumfahrt H, Schäffer H. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: Part II – Clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:9-18.
  • 6 Chen YW, Raigrodski AJ. A conservative approach for treating young adult patients with porcelain laminate veneers. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20:223-36.
  • 7 Holm C, Tidehag P, Tillberg A, Molin M. Longevity and quality of FPDs: A retrospective study of restorations 30, 20, and 10 years after insertion. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:283-9.
  • 8 Libby G, Arcuri MR, LaVelle WE, Hebl L. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:127-31.
  • 9 Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: A review of the literature. J Dent 2000;28:163-77.
  • 10 Wakiaga J, Brunton P, Silikas N, Glenny AM. Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD004347.
  • 11 Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:503-9.
  • 12 Öztürk E, Bolay Ş, Hickel R, Ilie N. Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to enamel, dentine and enamel-dentine complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. J Dent 2013;41:97-105.
  • 13 Magne P, Douglas WH. Optimization of resilience and stress distribution in porcelain veneers for the treatment of crown-fractured incisors. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:543-53.
  • 14 Magne P, Versluis A, Douglas WH. Effect of luting composite shrinkage and thermal loads on the stress distribution in porcelain laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:335-44.
  • 15 Magne P, Kwon KR, Belser UC, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Crack propensity of porcelain laminate veneers: A simulated operatory evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:327-34.
  • 16 Petridis HP, Zekeridou A, Malliari M, Tortopidis D, Koidis P. 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;7:138-52.
  • 17 Lin T, Liu P, Ramp L, Essig M, Givan D, Pan Y. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dentistry 2012;40:202-9.
  • 18 Lacy AM, Wada C, Du W, Watanabe L.In vitro microleakage at the gingival margin of porcelain and resin veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:7-10.
  • 19 Della Bona A, Kelly JR. A variety of patient factors may influence porcelain veneer survival over a 10-year period. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10:35-6.
  • 20 Carpena G, Ballarin A, Aguiar J. New ceramics approach for contact lens. Odovtos Int J Dent Sci 2015;17:12-8.
  • 21 Strassler HE. Minimally invasive porcelain veneers: Indications for a conservative esthetic dentistry treatment modality. Gen Dent 2007;55:686-94.
  • 22 Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:389-404.
  • 23 Trinkner TF, Roberts M. Fluorapatite-leucite glass ceramic veneers for aesthetic anterior restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13:37-41.
  • 24 Soares PV, Spini PH, Carvalho VF, Souza PG, Gonzaga RC, Tolentino AB, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation with laminated ceramic veneers reinforced by lithium disilicate. Quintessence Int 2014;45:129-33.
  • 25 Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: Basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;35:819-26.
  • 26 Sadowsky SJ. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:433-42.
  • 27 Cötert HS, Dündar M, Oztürk B. The effect of various preparation designs on the survival of porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:405-11.
  • 28 Carlyle LW 3rd, Richardson JT. The diagnostic wax-up: An aid in treatment planning. Tex Dent J 1985;102:10-2.
  • 29 Phillips K, Morgan R. The acrylic occlusal plane guide: A tool for esthetic occlusal reconstruction. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:302-4, 306.
  • 30 Preston JD. A systematic approach to the control of esthetic form. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:393-402.
  • 31 Yuodelis RA, Faucher R. Provisional restorations: An integrated approach to periodontics and restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1980;24:285-303.
  • 32 European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: Consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006;39:921-30.
  • 33 Ahmad IA. Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: A review. Int Endod J 2009;42:963-72.