Table 2.

Clinical studies are illustrating the survival rate of dental veneers. Adapted from Peumans et al., (2000) [18]

Study	Type of study	Number of veneers (number of patients)	Observation period	Survival rate	Remarks
Porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs)
(Peumans et al., 1998) [43]	Prospective	87 (25 patients)	5 years	93%	-
(Meijering et al., 1998) [61]	Prospective	263 (112 patients)	2.5 years	100%	-
(Dumfahrt & Schäffer 2000) [62]	Retrospective	191 (72 patients)	1 – 10 years	91% in 10 years	Failure increase when PLVs are bonded to dentin
(Magne et al,. 2000) [63]	Prospective	48 (16 patients)	4.5 years	100%	-
(Smales & Etemadi 2003) [48]	Retrospective	110 (50 patients)	Up to 7 years	95%	Compared two different preparation designs as well
(Chen et al., 2005) [64]	Retrospective	546 (not mentioned)	2.5 years	99%	All patients had tetracycline staining
(Granell et al., 2010) [65]	Prospective	323 (70 patients)	3 – 11 years	87% over 11 years	Failure increased with the presence of composites and bruxism
(Beier et al., 2011) [47]	Retrospective	318 (84 patients)	Up to 20 years	94% in 5 y. – 93% in 10 y. - 82% in 20 y.	50% of the patient were diagnosed with bruxism
(Layton & Walton 2012) [7]	Prospective	499 (155 patients)	Up to 21 years	96% in 10 y. 91% in 20 y.	Bonding to enamel is a critical factor for survival
Resin composites- direct and indirect (DC –IC)
(Peumans et al., 1997) [59]	Prospective	87 (23 patients)	5 years	89%	DC-Main failure due to wear
(Meijering et al., 1998) [61]	Prospective	263 (112 patients)	2.5 years	90% for IC - 74% for DC	Results for DC and IC
(Wolff et al., 2010) [54]	Retrospective	327 (101 patients)	5 years	79%	Result for DC
(Gresnigt et al., 2012) [60]	Prospective	96 (23 patients)	3.4 years	87%	Split mouth design- no difference between composite type- all DC