Evidence Hub

Survival and Complication Rates of Feldspathic, Leucite‐Reinforced, Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

P. Klein, F. Spitznagel, A. Zembic, L. S. Prott, S. Pieralli, B. Bongaerts, M. Metzendorf, R. Langner et al.

Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2024

53 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives To analyze survival and complication rates for anterior and premolar laminate‐veneers out of different ceramic materials (feldspathic, leucite‐reinforced glass–ceramic [LRGC], lithium‐disilicate [LDS] and zirconia). Material and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases for clinical studies on ceramic laminate‐veneers with a minimum‐follow‐up of ≥ 1 year. The date of last search was on February 19, 2024. Survival, technical, esthetic and biological events were assessed for different laminate‐veneer materials at three observation periods (short‐ [1–3 years], mid‐ [4–6 years] and long‐term [≥ 7 years]). Results Twenty‐nine studies were included. Meta‐analysis revealed a pooled survival‐rate of 96.13% for feldspathic, 93.70% for LRGC and 96.81% for LDS at 10.4 years. No difference was found between materials. Complication rates (technical/esthetic/biological) were as follows: Feldspathic: 41.48%/19.64%/6.51%; LRGC: 29.87%/17.89%/4.4%; LDS: 6.1%/1.9%/0.45% at 10.4 years. Zirconia showed a 100% survival‐rate with no complications at 2.6 years. No long‐term data was available for zirconia. Conclusions Feldspathic, LRGC and LDS laminate‐veneers showed high survival‐rates at long‐term observation. LDS slightly outperforms feldspathic and LRGC laminate‐veneers with lower long‐term complication rates. More studies providing long‐term data on zirconia laminate‐veneers are needed. Clinical Significance Ceramic laminate‐veneers are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free