Research Information System
BMC ORAL HEALTH, vol.24, no.1, pp.913-923, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) compared to
lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV).
Materials and methods Sixty resin replicas, each prepared with depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, were
produced using a 3D printer from acrylic teeth. Laminate veneers of these thicknesses were milled from pre-sintered
monolithic zirconia (3rd generation) and lithium disilicate blocks. The intaglio surface of MZLV was treated with
air abrasion using 110 μm diameter silica-modified aluminium oxide particles and ceramic primer, while LDLV was
etched with etchant gel and treated with the ceramic primer before cementation with resin cement. Vertical marginal
discrepancy (VMD) was assessed using a stereomicroscope, and a load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal
testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated macroscopically on fractured surfaces. Data were analysed statistically
using Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
Results LDLV samples exhibited significantly larger VMD compared to MZLV samples across all thicknesses, especially
in cervical, palatal, and mean data. Within the LDLV group, load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses
were similar, whereas for 0.5 mm thickness, it was significantly lower. In the MZLV group, load-to-fracture values were
lower for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses compared to LDLV, but higher for 0.5 mm thickness.
Conclusions Material choice and restoration thickness significantly influence laminate veneer restorations’ success.
MZLV generally exhibits superior vertical marginal fit compared to LDLV, with varying load-to-failure values across
different thicknesses. Clinical management of debonding in MZLV is simpler compared to restoration fracture in LDLV.
Clinical relevance Considering clinical factors, MZLV may be a preferable option to LDLV for this restoration with the
thickness of 0.5 mm.