Abstract
Indirect veneers are widely used as an esthetic restorative option in dentistry however, complications may occur leading to failure and the need for replacement. Understanding the prevalence and contributing factors to veneer failure is essential for proper diagnosis and for improving clinical outcomes. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, patterns, and causes of indirect veneer failures among patients receiving replacement restorations at the Dental University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 194 replaced veneer restorations. Data extracted from patient records included patient demographics, tooth location, type of failure, survival duration, veneer material, cement type, and preparation design. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were used to evaluate failure distribution across clinical and material-related variables. Associations between all variables were assessed using the Chi-square test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Veneer failure was more common in females (79.9%) than males (20.1%). Failures occurred more frequently in posterior teeth (65.5%) and in the maxilla (57.7%). Age-related peaks were observed at 44 years (20.6%), 38 years (10.3%), and 47 years (10.3%). Most failures occurred after 6–7 years of service. The most frequent cause was dimensional error in veneer size or shape (58.2%), followed by discoloration (21.1%). Lithium disilicate veneers accounted for the highest proportion of replacements in the study sample (64.4%), porcelain was more fracture-susceptible (10.3%), and zirconia showed higher debonding and shade mismatch (8.3% each). Failures were most common in veneers with incisal edge coverage (36.6%), followed by prep-less (32.5%) and minimal preparation designs (30.9%). Indirect veneer failures were predominantly associated with dimensional complications and discoloration, especially in lithium disilicate restorations and designs involving incisal edge coverage. These findings highlight the importance of careful case selection to enhance long-term veneer success.
Keywords: Indirect veneers, Veneer failure, Dental materials, Veneer longevity
Introduction
There is an increasing demand for veneer restorative treatments in modern dental practice driven by patients’ desire for better appearance and esthetics requirements. Veneers are considered one of the most conservative and effective modalities for enhancing dental esthetics and function. They may be classified as direct (composite resins placed chairside) or indirect (laboratory-fabricated restorations, commonly made from porcelain, feldspathic ceramics, or lithium disilicate) (Edelhoff et al. 2018; Sadowsky 2006). Indirect veneers are more popular for their superior optical properties, color stability, and long-term esthetic outcomes when compared to direct veneers. Veneer failures can present in several forms, including debonding, fracture, chipping, marginal discoloration, or color mismatch, compromising function, longevity, or esthetics and may necessitate replacement (Liu et al.2019; Komine et al.2024). Reported survival rates (approximately 95–97% survival at 5 years and around 90–96% at 10 years) of veneers vary depending on multiple factors including material selection, tooth preparation design, cementation technique, patient-related factors (e.g., age, parafunctional habits), and clinical skills of the practitioner (Liu et al.2019; Komine et al.2024).
The prevalence of veneer failure remains a critical concern in restorative dentistry, as it directly impacts treatment longevity, patient satisfaction, and the overall success of the rehabilitation process (Araujo and Perdigao 2021). Porcelain laminate veneers have demonstrated favorable long-term survival; however, evidence also indicates that improper bonding protocols and insufficient tooth preparation significantly increase the risk of restoration failure (Fahl and Ritter 2021). Recent reports also suggest that veneer failures are influenced not only by intraoral conditions but also by laboratory-related factors and processing errors (Araujo and Perdigao 2021; Fahl and Ritter 2021). Taken together, the current literature suggests that veneer survival depends on both the technical precision of clinical procedures and the reliability of laboratory processes, indicating the need for continued investigation into the patterns and causes of veneer failure in clinical settings.
For the indirect veneers, complications such as chipping and debonding remain common, specifically in high-stress areas, highlighting the importance of strict clinical protocols, including proper bonding and tooth preparation, to reduce failure risks (Gresnigt et al. 2021). Material choice plays a crucial role in clinical outcomes, with lithium disilicate restorations performing differently from other ceramic options, and conventional ceramic veneers demonstrating superior fracture resistance compared to partial laminate veneers or direct composites (AlJazairy. 2021; Alghazzawi 2024; Abdulrahman et al. 2021; Gresnigt et al. 2021). A clearer understanding of failure-related factors is critical for improving long-term success rates and patient satisfaction. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of indirect veneer failure among patients receiving replacement restorations at King Saud University Dental Hospital, with a focus on measuring the distribution of failure types among the veneer replacement cases as documented in patient records.
Materials and methods
Study design and setting
This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Dental University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study included patients who had undergone replacement of failed indirect veneer restorations. Data were obtained from patient records covering cases treated over the period of two years (2022–2024). The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at King Saud University Medical City (Ref No: E-24–9432).
Study population and sample size
The study population comprised patients who received indirect veneer replacement therapy at the Dental University Hospital, King Saud University. A priori sample size calculation was performed using G*Power (α = 0.05, power = 80%), which indicated a minimum of 158 cases; ultimately, 194 eligible replaced restorations were included, exceeding the required sample size. Patients were included if they had documented replacement of indirect veneers with complete demographic and clinical data available in their records, while cases were excluded if records were incomplete, missing details regarding the restoration or failure, or involved direct composite veneers or non-veneer restorations.
Data collection and outcome measures
Data were collected retrospectively from patient records using a structured extraction form. The following variables were recorded: type of veneer failure (fracture, chipping, debonding, dimensional errors, or discoloration), survival time of the previous veneer, date of replacement, patient gender and age, tooth location, number of veneered teeth, number of replaced veneers, type of cement used (if available), type of veneer material (porcelain, zirconia, or lithium disilicate, and preparation design (prep-less, minimal, or incisal edge coverage, when reported). The primary outcome was the type and frequency of veneer failures requiring replacement, while secondary outcomes included survival time and associations between failures and patient-, tooth-, or material-related factors. Preparation designs were categorized as follows: Prep-less (no-preparation): Veneers placed without intentional tooth reduction, limited to surface cleaning or minor enamel recontouring. Minimal preparation: Conservative enamel reduction confined to the facial surface (≤ 0.5 mm), without incisal edge reduction or palatal extension. Incisal edge coverage: Facial reduction combined with incisal reduction, with the veneer extending over the incisal edge (with or without slight palatal wrap).
Fracture was defined as the complete structural failure of the veneer involving a crack or break that compromises the integrity of the restoration and necessitates full replacement and chipping was defined as the partial loss of veneering material involving a localized defect (e.g., marginal or incisal chip) without complete structural disruption of the restoration, but severe enough to require replacement rather than simple polishing or repair.
Dimensional error was based on documentation in the clinical records and referred to discrepancies in contour, proximal contact, marginal adaptation, or anatomical form identified at the time of replacement. This reflect late-developing changes such as wear, contact loss, or progressive esthetic/functional disharmony.
Statistical analysis
Data were entered and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to summarize patient demographics, veneer characteristics, and failure patterns. Cross-tabulations were performed to explore the distribution of failure types by tooth location, veneer material, cement type, and preparation design. Associations between all variables were assessed using the Chi-square test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 194 veneer failures were analyzed, with failures more common in females (n = 155; 79.9%) than in males (n = 39; 20.1%). Distribution by tooth number, according to the FDI World Dental Federation notation system, showed that failures were most frequent in the maxillary left lateral incisor (tooth 22; n = 14, 7.22%), followed by tooth 12 (n = 13, 6.70%) and tooth 21 (n = 13, 6.70%). Failures occurred more often in the maxilla (n = 112, 57.7%) than in the mandible (n = 82, 42.3%) and were significantly higher in posterior teeth (n = 127, 65.5%) compared to anterior teeth (n = 67, 34.5%). Age-related analysis revealed veneer failures across a wide range, with peaks observed at 44 years (n = 40, 20.6%), 38 years (n = 20, 10.3%), and 47 years (n = 20, 10.3%). Failures were also notable at ages 46 (n = 19, 9.8%) and 51 (n = 16, 8.3%). The distribution of survival time among failed veneers indicated that most failures occurred after 6 years (n = 74, 38.1%) and 7 years (n = 59, 30.4%), whereas earlier failures were less frequent at 1 year (n = 2, 1.0%), 3 years (n = 24, 12.4%), and 5 years (n = 35, 18.0%) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Veneer failures by age (A) and survival duration (B)
With respect to failure type, the most common cause was dimensional error in veneer size and/or shape (n = 113, 58.2%), followed by combined discoloration with size and shape issues (n = 41, 21.1%). Other combinations included chipping with discoloration and fracture (n = 20, 10.3%) and chipping with recurrent caries (n = 20, 10.3%). Discoloration alone was identified in 22 cases (11.3%), debonding in 16 cases (8.3%), and fracture in smaller proportions (Table 1 and Fig. 2).
Table 1.
Distribution of veneer failures by type and location
| Type of Failure | Maxilla (n, %) | Mandible (n, %) | Anterior (n, %) | Posterior (n, %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chipping | 43 (22.2) | 44 (22.7) | 31 (16.0) | 56 (28.9) |
| Discoloration | 44 (22.7) | 45 (23.2) | 30 (15.5) | 59 (30.4) |
| Size error | 69 (35.6) | 44 (22.7) | 39 (20.1) | 74 (38.1) |
| Shape error | 61 (31.4) | 36 (18.6) | 33 (17.0) | 64 (33.0) |
| Fracture | 12 (6.2) | 12 (6.2) | 9 (4.6) | 15 (7.7) |
| Debonding | 8 (4.1) | 12 (6.2) | 9 (4.6) | 11 (5.7) |
| Shade mismatch | 8 (4.1) | 12 (6.2) | 9 (4.6) | 11 (5.7) |
| Recurrent caries | 10 (5.2) | 14 (7.2) | 8 (4.1) | 16 (8.3) |
Fig. 2.
Distribution of veneer failure types
Analysis of material-related and cement-related failures showed that the majority of failures occurred in lithium disilicate veneers, especially dimensional errors in size (41.2%) and shape (33.0%). Porcelain veneers were more frequently associated with chipping (18.6%) and fracture (10.3%), whereas Zirconia veneers showed no chipping, fractures, or recurrent caries, but were more associated with debonding (8.3%) and shade mismatch (8.3%). Failures were primarily linked to resin-cemented veneers, especially discoloration (22.2%) and size errors (25.8%) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Distribution of veneer failures by materials and cement type
| Type of Failure | Lithium disilicate (n, %) | Zirconia (n, %) | Porcelain (n, %) | Resin Cement (n, %) | Non-resin Cement (n, %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chipping | 51 (26.3) | 0 (0.0) | 36 (18.6) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.0) |
| Discoloration | 53 (27.3) | 16 (8.3) | 20 (10.3) | 43 (22.2) | 0 (0.0) |
| Size error | 80 (41.2) | 17 (8.8) | 16 (8.3) | 50 (25.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Shape error | 64 (33.0) | 17 (8.8) | 16 (8.3) | 34 (17.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Fracture | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 20 (10.3) | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Debonding | 4 (2.1) | 16 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Shade mismatch | 4 (2.1) | 16 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Recurrent caries | 24 (12.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) |
Regarding preparation design, failures were most frequent in veneers with incisal edge coverage (n = 71, 36.6%), followed by prep-less veneers (n = 63, 32.5%) and minimal preparation without incisal coverage (n = 60, 30.9%) (Fig. 3). Overall, Chi-square testing showed statistically significant differences in the distribution of veneer failure types across all examined factors (site, location, material, cement type, and preparation design, p < 0.005). Size and shape errors were consistently the most frequent failures, mostly in lithium disilicate veneers and incisal edge coverage preparations, while posterior and maxillary sites exhibited higher overall failure counts (Table 3).
Fig. 3.
Veneer failures by preparation design
Table 3.
Statistical analysis of veneer failure type distribution
| Factor | Type of Failure | p-value | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chipping | Discoloration | Size error | Shape error | Fracture | Debonding | Shade mismatch | Recurrent caries | ||||
| Site | Anterior | 31 | 30 | 39 | 33 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 67 | < 0.005 |
| 46.3% | 44.8% | 58.2% | 49.3% | 13.4% | 9.0% | 9.0% | 13.4% | ||||
| Posterior | 56 | 59 | 74 | 64 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 127 | < 0.005 | |
| 44% | 46.5% | 58.3% | 50.4% | 11.8% | 11.0% | 11.0% | 11.8% | ||||
| Location | Maxillary | 49 | 44 | 69 | 61 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 112 | < 0.005 |
| 43.8% | 39.3% | 61.6% | 54.5% | 10.7% | 8.9% | 8.9% | 10.7% | ||||
| Mandible | 38 | 45 | 44 | 36 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 82 | < 0.005 | |
| 0.46 | 54.9% | 53.7% | 43.9% | 14.6% | 12.2% | 12.2% | 14.6% | ||||
| Type of previous veneers material | Lithium disilicate | 51 | 53 | 80 | 64 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 24 | 125 | < 0.005 |
| 40.8% | 42.4% | 64.0% | 51.2% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 19.2% | ||||
| Zirconia | 0 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 33 | < 0.005 | |
| 0 | 48.5% | 51.5% | 51.5% | 0.0% | 48.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||||
| Porcelain | 36 | 20 | 16 | 16 | 20 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 36 | < 0.005 | |
| 100.0% | 55.6% | 44.4% | 44.4% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 44.4% | 0.0% | ||||
| Cement type | Resin cement | 0 | 43 | 50 | 34 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 53 | < 0.005 |
| 0 | 81.1% | 94.3% | 64.2% | 7.5% | 7.5% | 7.5% | 7.5% | ||||
| Non-resin cement | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | < 0.005 | |
| 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||||
| Preparation design | Incisal edge coverage | 45 | 29 | 35 | 35 | 20 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 71 | < 0.005 |
| 0.63 | 40.8% | 49.3% | 49.3% | 28.2% | 22.5% | 22.5% | 0.0% | ||||
| Minimal- prep | 0 | 59 | 57 | 41 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 60 | < 0.005 | |
| 0.0% | 98.3% | 95.0% | 68.3% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | ||||
| Prep-less | 42 | 1 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 63 | < 0.005 | |
| 0.66 | 1.6% | 33.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.7% | ||||
Percentages are calculated within each failure category. P-values were obtained using Chi-square tests to assess differences in distribution of failure characteristics across groups
Discussion
This study evaluated the prevalence and patterns of indirect veneer failures among patients receiving replacement restorations at the Dental University Hospital, King Saud University. The aim was to explore the technical, material, and patient-related factors that influence long-term outcomes. The findings indicated that the most common cause of replacement was dimensional inaccuracy (veneer size and shape errors) followed by esthetic concerns such as discoloration and shade mismatch. These findings emphasize the critical role of accurate case selection to minimize early failures.
Veneer failures were more common in posterior and maxillary teeth, consistent with their greater exposure to occlusal forces and esthetic demands (Tu et al. 2025). Gender distribution showed more failures among females, however, this probably reflects greater treatment demand rather than a biological predisposition. Age was also relevant, with peaks observed in patients aged 44–47 years, which may be explained by cumulative functional wear, occlusal changes, and natural aging of the restorations (Chan et al. 2024). Most failures occurred after 6–7 years, aligning with previous reports of mean veneer survival ranging between 7 and 10 years (Peumans et al. 2000; Layton and Walton 2007).
The most frequent cause of veneer replacement in this cohort was related to dimensional inaccuracies in veneer size and shape, followed by a combination of discoloration with esthetic mismatches indicating the importance of accurate digital or conventional impressions, careful and precise handling in the lab, and vigilant shade selection during the initial restorative process. Errors at these stages may cause serious compromise to the esthetic outcomes and lead to functional discrepancies, ultimately leading to failures and restorations replacement. These findings align with previous literature reporting that esthetic dissatisfaction and technical errors are the leading reasons for veneer replacement, even when the veneer itself might be structurally intact (Klein et al. 2025; Bai et al. 2021; Peumans et al. 2004). Such discrepancies may arise from inaccuracies in the diagnostic wax-up, laboratory fabrication, or occlusal assessment, which can lead to veneers that do not harmonize with the patient’s existing dentition.
Material selection was another important determinant. Lithium disilicate veneers exhibited the highest number of failures, possibly reflecting both their widespread use and their susceptibility to fracture under high load if case selection is inaccurate. Porcelain veneers were more frequently associated with fractures, while zirconia veneers demonstrated fewer fractures but more debonding and shade mismatch. These observations confirm that each ceramic material carries specific advantages and limitations, and that selection must be tailored to patient needs and occlusal conditions (Morimoto et al. 2016; Fabbri et al. 2014; Pyo et al. 2020).
Preparation and cementation also influenced outcomes and failure patterns. Veneers with incisal edge coverage showed slightly higher failure rates compared to prep-less and minimal preparations, suggesting that while extended designs may improve retention, they also concentrate stresses at vulnerable margins (Smielak et al. 2022; Hong et al. 2017). Resin cement was used in most failed veneers however, missing data limited meaningful interpretation. Nevertheless, the role of cementation technique remains critical, as bonding quality strongly affects longevity.
This study has several limitations. First, its retrospective design relies on the completeness and accuracy of existing clinical records, which may result in missing or inconsistent data, particularly regarding cement type and preparation details. Second, failure management and post-replacement outcomes were not recorded, limiting insights into clinical decision-making after veneer failure. Third, the sample includes veneers from multiple operators and laboratories, introducing variability in technique and material handling. Finally, the study did not assess patient-related factors such as parafunctional habits or occlusal forces, which may influence veneer longevity. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and may guide future prospective studies.
Conclusions
Indirect veneer failures are multifactorial, with esthetic and dimensional discrepancies being the leading causes. Failures occurred more frequently in posterior and maxillary teeth, in middle-aged patients, and after 6–7 years of service. Careful material selection, precise preparation design, and proper cementation protocols, combined with long-term follow-up beyond five years, are essential for optimizing veneer longevity.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the College of Dentistry Research Centre and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for supporting this project (Research Project # IR 0526).
Author contributions
Conceptualization, K.A.; Data curation, K.A., M.A., A.A., and Y.A.; Formal analysis, N.M.; Investigation and Methodology, K.A., M.A., and A.A.; Supervision, K.A., N. M. and M.A.; Validation, N.M. and M.A. Writing—original draft, K.A., M.A. and N.M.; Writing—review and editing, Y.A., N.M. M.A. and K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data availability
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Declarations
Institutional review board statement
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at King Saud University Medical City (Ref No: E-24–9432).
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- Abdulrahman S, Von See Mahm C, Talabani R, Abdulateef D (2021) Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 21(1):625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Alghazzawi TF (2024) Clinical survival rate and laboratory failure of dental veneers: a narrative literature review. J Funct Biomater 15(5):131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- AlJazairy YH (2021) Survival rates for porcelain laminate veneers: a systematic review. Eur J Dent 15(2):360–368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Araujo E, Perdigao J (2021) Anterior veneer restorations - an evidence-based minimal-intervention perspective. J Adhes Dent 23(2):91–110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bai XD, Yan YZ, Li Q (2021) Spectrophotometric evaluation of color errors generated in the visual color duplication procedure for current ceramic veneers. J Dent Sci 16(1):145–153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chan AKY, Tsang YC, Lai EH, Chu CH (2024) Tooth wear in older adults: a review of clinical studies. Geriatrics (Basel) 9(1):12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edelhoff D, Prandtner O, Saeidi Pour R, Liebermann A, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF (2018) Anterior restorations: the performance of ceramic veneers. Quintessence Int 9(2):89–101 [Google Scholar]
- Fabbri G, Zarone F, Dellificorelli G, Cannistraro G, De Lorenzi M, Mosca A, Sorrentino R (2014) Clinical evaluation of 860 anterior and posterior lithium disilicate restorations: retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 3 years and a maximum observational period of 6 years. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34(2):165–177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fahl N Jr., Ritter AV (2021) Composite veneers: the direct-indirect technique revisited. J Esthet Restor Dent 33(1):7–19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gresnigt MMM, Sugii MM, Johanns KBFW, van der Made SAM (2021) Comparison of conventional ceramic laminate veneers, partial laminate veneers and direct composite resin restorations in fracture strength after aging. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 114:104172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hong N, Yang H, Li J, Wu S, Li Y (2017) Effect of preparation designs on the prognosis of porcelain laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent 42(6):E197–E213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Klein P, Spitznagel FA, Zembic A, Prott LS, Pieralli S, Bongaerts B, Metzendorf MI, Langner R, Gierthmuehlen PC (2025) Survival and complication rates of feldspathic, leucite-reinforced, lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent 37(3):601–619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Komine F, Furuchi M, Honda J, Kubochi K, Takata H (2024) Clinical performance of laminate veneers: A review of the literature. J Prosthodont Res 68(3):368–379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Layton D, Walton T (2007) An up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont 20(4):389–396 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu M, Gai K, Chen J, Jiang L (2019) Comparison of failure and complication risks of porcelain laminate and indirect resin veneer restorations: a meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont 32(1):59–65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morimoto S, Albanesi RB, Sesma N, Agra CM, Braga MM (2016) Main clinical outcomes of feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and complication rates. Int J Prosthodont 29(1):38–49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2000) Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent 28(3):163–177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B (2004) A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 6(1):65–76 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pyo SW, Kim DJ, Han JS, Yeo IL (2020) Ceramic materials and technologies applied to digital works in implant-supported restorative dentistry. Materials (Basel) 13(8):1964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sadowsky SJ (2006) An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 96(6):433–442 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smielak B, Armata O, Bojar W (2022) A prospective comparative analysis of the survival rates of conventional vs no-prep/minimally invasive veneers over a mean period of 9 years. Clin Oral Investig 26(3):3049–3059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tu Y, Zhao X, Zhao G, Ding Q, Sun Y, Zhang L (2025) Assessment of physiological posterior-tooth displacement under habitual occlusal force by intraoral scanning using implant-supported crowns as the reference. J Prosthet Dent 133(5):1260–1267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.