Fracture Resistance of Composite Veneers with Different Preparation Designs

Open access


Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the fracture load of composite veneers using three different preparation designs. Material and methods: Fifteen extracted, intact, human maxillary central incisors were selected. Teeth were divided into three groups with different preparation design: 1) feather preparation, 2) bevel preparation, and 3) incisal overlap- palatal chamfer. Teeth were restored with composite veneers, and the specimens were loaded to failure. The localization of the fracture was recorded as incisal, gingival or combined. Results: Composite veneers with incisal overlap - palatal chamfer showed higher fracture resistance compared to feather preparation and bevel preparation. The mean (SD) fracture loads were: Group 1: 100.6±8.0 N, Group 2: 107.4±6.8 N, and Group 3: 122.0±8.8 N. The most common mode of failure was debonding for veneers with feather preparation and fracture when incisal edge is reduced. The most frequent localization of fracture was incisal. Conclusion: The type of preparation has a significant effect on fracture load for composite veneers. This study indicates that using an incisal overlap- palatal chamfer preparation design significantly increases the fracture resistance compared to feather and bevel preparation designs.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Magne P Perroud R Hodges JS Belser UC. Clinical performance of novel-design porcelain veneers for the rec Gemalmazovery of coronal volume and length. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000; 20:440-457.

  • 2. Fradeani M Redemagni M Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical evaluation-a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25:9-17.

  • 3. Dikova T Abadjiev M Balcheva M. Clinical application of the contemporary nano-materials (part 1 - laboratory composites). J of IMAB 2009; 2:67-70.

  • 4. Magne P Douglas WH. Additive contour of porcelain veneers: a key element in enamel preservation adhesion and esthetics for aging dentition. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1:81-92.

  • 5. Friedman MJ. Porcelain veneer restorations: a clinician’s opinion about a disturbing trend. J Esthet Restor Dent 2001;13:318-327.

  • 6. Fahl N. The direct/indirect composite resin veneers: a case report. Int Aesthet Chro 1996; 8:627-638.

  • 7. Covey DA Tahaney SR Davenport JM. Mechanical properties of heat-treated composite resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:458-461.

  • 8. Rueggeberg FA. Substrate for adhesion testing to tooth structure- review of the literature. Dent Mater 1991; 7:2-10.

  • 9. Sadighpour L Geramipanah F Allahyari S Sichani BF Fard MJK. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance and microleakage of porcelain laminate veneers bonded to teeth with composite fillings after cyclic loading. J Adv Prosthodont 2014; 6:278-284.

  • 10. Alghazzavi T Lemons J Liu P Essig M Janowski G. The failure load of CAD/CAM generated zirconia and glassceramic laminate veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108:386-393.

  • 11. D’Souza Kumar M. Esthetics and Biocompatibility of Composite Dental Laminates. MJAFI 2010; 66:239-243.

  • 12. Ramandeep Dhillon JS Passi S Raghav Chhabra A. Effect of reinforcement on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars by various bonded restorations -an in vitro study. DJAS 2015; 3:103-111.

  • 13. Li Z Yang Z Zuo L Meng Y. A three-dimensional finite element study on anterior laminate veneers with different incisal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112:325-333.

  • 14. Meijering AC Creugers NH Roeters FJ Mulder J. Survival of three types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: A 2.5 year interim evaluation. J Dent 1998; 26:563-568.

  • 15. Mirra G El-Mahalawy S. Fracture Strength and Microleakage of Laminate Veneers. Cairo Dent J 2009; 25:245-254.

  • 16. Christensen GJ Christensen RP. Clinical observations of porcelain veneers: A three-year report. J Esthet Dent 1991; 3:174-179.

  • 17. Shetty A Kaiwar A Shubhashini N Ashwini P Naveen DN Adarsha MS et al. Survival rates of porcelain laminate restoration based on different incisal preparation designs: An analysis. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14:10-15.

  • 18. Smales RJ Etemadi S. Long term survival of porcelain laminate veneers using two preparation designs: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17:323-326.

  • 19. Highton R Caputo AA Mátyás J. A photo-elastic study of stresses on porcelain laminate preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 58:157-161.

  • 20. Magne P Douglas WH. Design optimization and evolution of bonded ceramics for anterior dentition: Finite Element Analysis. Quintessence Int 1999; 30:661-672.

  • 21. Zarone F Apicella D Sorrentino R Ferro V Aversa R Apicella A. 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; 21:1178-1188.

  • 22. Jankar AS Kale Y Kangane S Ambekar A Sinha M Chaware S. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of Ceramic Veneer with three different incisal design preparations - An In-vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2014; 6:48-54.

  • 23. Chaiyabutr Y Phillips K.M Polly S Ma. Comparison of load-fatigue testing of ceramic veneers with two different preparation designs. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22:573-575.

  • 24. Schmidt KK Chiayabutr Y Phillips KM Kois JC. Influence of preparation design and existing condition of tooth structure on load to failure of ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105:374-382.

  • 25. Akoglu B Gemalmaz D. Fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthodont 2011; 20:380-384.

  • 26. Magne P Versluis A Douglas WH. Effect of luting composite shrinkage & thermal stress distribution in porcelain laminates veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:335-344.

  • 27. Hussain F Al-Huwaizi B.D.S. A finite element analysis of the effect of different margin designs and loading positions on stress concentration in porcelain veneers. J Coll Dentistry 2005; 17:8-12.

  • 28. Castelnuovo J Tjan AH Phillips K Nicholls JI Kois JC. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83:171-180

  • 29. Wall JG Johnston WM. Incisal edge strength of porcelain laminate veneers restoring mandibular incisors. Int J Prostohdont 1992; 5:441-446.

  • 30. Faunce FR Myers DR. Laminate veneer restorations of permanent incisors. J Am Dent Assoc 1976; 93:790-792.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1108 665 53
PDF Downloads 175 103 5