Table 1.
Factor | Examples |
---|---|
Inappropriate case selection | Unfavorable occlusion [9]. |
Endodontically treated teeth [7]. | |
Patient with inherent parafunctionality, e.g., grinding (ice cubes), biting (nail and pencil), bruxism [7]. | |
Improper material selection | Selection of resin cements with a low modulus of elasticity [10]. |
Selection of a material with a low flexural strength (feldspathic porcelain) for cases that need a high strength, e.g., lingually tilted teeth, diastema closure, and/or correction of malformed anterior teeth [11]. | |
Improper communication with the dental laboratory | Thicker veneer [12] and incorrect ratio of veneer thicknesses to die spacer (the die spacer thickness must not be more than 1/3 of the veneer thickness to prevent debonding or fracture) [13]. |
Improper preparation design | Sharp angles or inadequate tooth reduction; extension of the preparation to the palatal surface [9]; incisal coverage for maxillary canine [14]; not restoring a cavity to obtain a thick cement layer [12]; labial thicknesses of ultrathin veneers should be 0.5/0.4 mm for premolar teeth [15]. |
Improper cementation procedure | Improper veneer handling, especially for fragile feldspathic veneers. |
Incomplete polymerization using light-cure based resin cements for thick (>1 mm) opaque cement and opaque veneer (e.max MO *, HO *, zirconia) [16,17]. | |
Inappropriate finishing and polishing, leading to cracks [18]. | |
Improper occlusion for post laminate veneer delivery | Inappropriate occlusion in centric relation, protrusive, and canine guided movements [14]. |
* MO = medium opacity, HO = high opacity.