Influence of ceramic thickness and dental substrate on the survival rate and failure load of non-retentive occlusal veneers after fatigue

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of ceramic thickness and dental substrate (enamel vs. dentin/enamel) on the survival rate and failure load of non-retentive occlusal veneers. Materials and MethodsHuman maxillary molars (n = 60) were divided into five test-groups (n = 12). The groups (named DE-1.5, DE-1.0, DE-0.5, E-1.0, E-0.5) differed in their dental substrate (E = enamel, DE = dentin/enamel) and restoration thickness (standard: 1.5 mm, thin: 1.0 mm, ultrathin: 0.5 mm). All teeth were prepared for non-retentive monolithic lithium-disilicate occlusal veneers (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar). Restorations were adhesively cemented (Syntac Classic/Variolink II, Ivoclar) and exposed to thermomechanical fatigue (1.2 million cycles, 1.6 Hz, 49 N/ 5-55 & DEG;C). Single load to failure was performed using a universal testing-machine. A linear-regression model was applied, pairwise comparisons used the Student-Newman-Keuls method (p < 0.05). ResultsThree dentin-based occlusal veneers (one DE-1.0, two DE-0.5) revealed cracks after fatigue exposure, which corresponds to an overall-survival rate of 95%. Load to failure resulted in the following ranking: 2142 N(DE-0.5) > 2105 N(E-1.0) > 2075 N(E-0.5) > 1440 N(DE-1.5) > 1430 N(DE-1.0). Thin (E-1.0) and ultrathin enamel-based occlusal veneers (E-0.5) revealed high failure loads and surpassed the standard thickness dentin-based veneers (DE-1.5) significantly (p = 0.044, p = 0.022). ConclusionAll tested monolithic lithium disilicate occlusal veneers obtained failure loads above physiological chewing forces. Thin and ultrathin enamel-based occlusal veneers outperformed the standard thick dentin-based occlusal veneers. Clinical SignificanceMinimally invasive enamel-based occlusal veneer restorations with non-retentive preparation design may serve as a conservative treatment option.