Clinical Longevity of Ceramic Laminate Veneers

April 15, 2019 updated by: Marco Gresnigt, University Medical Center Groningen

Clinical Longevity of Ceramic Laminate Veneers Bonded to Teeth With and Without Existing Composite Restorations up to 10 Years

Rationale: Survival rates of teeth with laminate veneers were reported to have more marginal caries and discoloration when existing restorations are present. However in these studies no conditioning of the existing restorations was performed.

Objective: This study evaluate the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without existing composite restorations Study design: Prospectief Cohort research Study population: the participants received laminate veneers and older then 18 years.

Intervention (if applicable): The participants received laminate veneers in the past. No intervention.

Main study parameters/endpoints: Survival and success of laminate veneers with existing restorations: Survival (no loss of laminate veneer during follow up time), Success was measured using USPHS health criteria.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: The participants are asked to come for a check-up of their restorations, the investigators will evaluate the laminate veneers by sight and take some light photo's and a patient questionnaire will be given.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

The use of ceramic laminate veneers as opposed to metal-ceramic or all-ceramic full-coverage crowns is a minimal invasive treatment option in reconstructive dentistry. Since their retention relies solely on adhesion, durable adhesion of resin luting cements to both the enamel/dentin and the cementation surface of the ceramic is crucial. Luting cements used in conjunction with phosphoric acid etching followed by adhesive application on enamel show reliable adhesion with mean bond strengths up to 40 MPa. Also, etching the intaglio of glass ceramic veneers with hydrofluoric acid followed by silane coupling agent application delivers bond strength values similar to or higher than to enamel. Even after long-term water storage and thermocycling aging conditions, promising results were reported with resin-ceramic adhesion. Ceramic laminates are indicated not only to restore malformed, malpositioned, or discolored teeth where mainly the substrate is the enamel and/or dentin but also in situations where resin composite restorations are present on the tooth to be restored. In case of secondary caries, severe marginal or surface changes, it may be necessary to remove such restorations. On the other hand, degradation of polymers in the aggressive oral environment may decrease the free radicals available on the resin surface that may eventually decrease the adhesion of resin cements to such composites. However, limited information is available on the survival of ceramic laminates on such existing composite restorations where mainly fractures and marginal defects were reported. Defects were especially noticed at the locations where the existing fillings were present. In fact, today, advances in surface conditioning methods and adhesion promoters enable durable composite-composite adhesion. Among numerous other methods, several studies reported increased composite- composite bond strengths after conditioning the composites with alumina or alumina-coated silica particles followed by silanization. The process of silanization promotes the wettability of the substrates and further reacts with the glass particles present on the composite surface forming covalent bonds. Composite- composite bond strength simulating aging after silica coating and silanization was reported to deliver significantly higher bond strengths (46-52 MPa) than conditioning the composite substrate with phosphoric acid and adhesive resin application only (16-25 MPa). Unfortunately, the previous clinical studies did not report application of any surface conditioning method prior to cementation of ceramic laminates. In clinical practice, the clinical dilemma is whether or not to remove the existing composite restorations with no indications of caries or acceptable surface degradation that could be refinished and repolished. Alternatively, full-coverage crowns are indicated on teeth with large composite restorations that require more tissue removal yielding to preparations in dentin that is a substrate less favorable to bond onto than enamel. The objective of this prospective clinical study is to evaluate the performance of ceramic laminate veneers bonded onto either intact teeth or to teeth with existing composite restorations with no indications of caries, ditching, or marginal staining. The null hypothesis tested is that the presence of existing composite restorations would not decrease the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers compared to those bonded onto intact teeth.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Anticipated)

110

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

This is an evaluative prospective study where over 450 laminate veneers were made in 110 patients. All patients will be asked to enrol in the study. Probably 90% will come to an evaluation appointment when asked to enrol. 90% seems very high but all patients were formerly patients when dr. Gresnigt was still working in a private general dentistry office. So reasonably 400 laminate veneers with 100 patients will be expected to be evaluated.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • All patients treated with laminate veneers by dr. Gresnigt
  • at least 18 years old
  • able to read and sign the informed consent document
  • physically and psychologically able come for an evaluation as outlined by the investigators.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • People not able to return or not willing to come for an evaluation
  • People died

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Restorations which survived when applied on the tooth till the last follow up. (survival)
Time Frame: june 2007- september 2018
Caries, debonding, chipping, and fracture are considered as absolute failures. Due to these factors the restorations will be lost and a new one has to be made, that is why these scores are survival and main endpoints.
june 2007- september 2018

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Succes
Time Frame: june 2007 - september 2018
Both observers evaluate the restorations independently, according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria on Marginal Adaptation, Color match, Marginal discoloration, Surface roughness, Fracture of the restoration, Fracture of the tooth, wear of the restoration, wear of the antagonist, Caries, Postoperative sensitivity. Patient satisfaction. Above scores are not indications for removal of the restoration but sometimes can be a deterioration of the restoration itself. So the esthetic outcome can be a little less but the survival is still good.
june 2007 - september 2018

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Marco Cune, Prof, University Medical Center Groningen

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ANTICIPATED)

May 1, 2019

Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED)

June 1, 2019

Study Completion (ANTICIPATED)

December 1, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 21, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 22, 2018

First Posted (ACTUAL)

August 24, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

April 16, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 15, 2019

Last Verified

April 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Gresnigt

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

This study will focus on laminate veneers bonded to teeth with and without composite restorations. And also will be looked at preparations were more than 50% of dentin was exposed if an immediate dentin sealing would have an benefit.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Dental Restoration Failure of Marginal Integrity

Clinical Trials on checkup, no test

3
Subscribe