Survival and Complication Rates of Feldspathic, Leucite‐Reinforced, Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Patrick Klein,Frank A. Spitznagel,Anja Zembic,Lea S. Prott,Stefano Pieralli,Brenda Bongaerts,Maria‐Inti Metzendorf,Robert Langner,Petra C. Gierthmuehlen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13351
2024-11-13
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Abstract:Objectives To analyze survival and complication rates for anterior and premolar laminate‐veneers out of different ceramic materials (feldspathic, leucite‐reinforced glass–ceramic [LRGC], lithium‐disilicate [LDS] and zirconia). Material and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases for clinical studies on ceramic laminate‐veneers with a minimum‐follow‐up of ≥ 1 year. The date of last search was on February 19, 2024. Survival, technical, esthetic and biological events were assessed for different laminate‐veneer materials at three observation periods (short‐ [1–3 years], mid‐ [4–6 years] and long‐term [≥ 7 years]). Results Twenty‐nine studies were included. Meta‐analysis revealed a pooled survival‐rate of 96.13% for feldspathic, 93.70% for LRGC and 96.81% for LDS at 10.4 years. No difference was found between materials. Complication rates (technical/esthetic/biological) were as follows: Feldspathic: 41.48%/19.64%/6.51%; LRGC: 29.87%/17.89%/4.4%; LDS: 6.1%/1.9%/0.45% at 10.4 years. Zirconia showed a 100% survival‐rate with no complications at 2.6 years. No long‐term data was available for zirconia. Conclusions Feldspathic, LRGC and LDS laminate‐veneers showed high survival‐rates at long‐term observation. LDS slightly outperforms feldspathic and LRGC laminate‐veneers with lower long‐term complication rates. More studies providing long‐term data on zirconia laminate‐veneers are needed. Clinical Significance Ceramic laminate‐veneers are a reliable treatment option. LDS may be preferred as a restorative material for long‐term success.
dentistry, oral surgery & medicine