Abstract
Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the fracture load of composite veneers using three different preparation designs. Material and methods: Fifteen extracted, intact, human maxillary central incisors were selected. Teeth were divided into three groups with different preparation design: 1) feather preparation, 2) bevel preparation, and 3) incisal overlap- palatal chamfer. Teeth were restored with composite veneers, and the specimens were loaded to failure. The localization of the fracture was recorded as incisal, gingival or combined. Results: Composite veneers with incisal overlap - palatal chamfer showed higher fracture resistance compared to feather preparation and bevel preparation. The mean (SD) fracture loads were: Group 1: 100.6±8.0 N, Group 2: 107.4±6.8 N, and Group 3: 122.0±8.8 N. The most common mode of failure was debonding for veneers with feather preparation and fracture when incisal edge is reduced. The most frequent localization of fracture was incisal. Conclusion: The type of preparation has a significant effect on fracture load for composite veneers. This study indicates that using an incisal overlap- palatal chamfer preparation design significantly increases the fracture resistance compared to feather and bevel preparation designs.
Highlights
Patients’ desire for aesthetic correction of the front teeth is constantly growing
Regarding the reduction of the incisal edge, preparation design can be classified as: window preparation; feather preparation; bevel preparation; incisal overlap or palatal chamfer
Teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=5) with different preparation design: 1) feather preparation, 2) bevel preparation, and 3) incisal overlap-palatal chamfer
Summary
Patients’ desire for aesthetic correction of the front teeth is constantly growing. There is increased number of patients with aesthetic demands. There are many ways to re-establish bio-aesthetic relation and composite veneers are one of them. High aesthetics, mechanical resistance, low allergy-causing potential, effective cost, opportunity for clinical repairs, increase the use of composite veneers in clinical practice as a contemporary aesthetic solution[3]. Labial and proximal surfaces should be uniform prepared, if possible, and no less than 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm[4]. Regarding the reduction of the incisal edge, preparation design can be classified as: window preparation (non reduced incisal edge); feather preparation (non reduced incisal edge with the entire labial surface covered by the veneer); bevel preparation (reduced incisal edge with bucco-palatal tilt preparation over the entire tooth width); incisal overlap or palatal chamfer (the reduction of incisal edge with palatal extension preparation). An important decision that should be made before starting the preparation is whether the incisal edge will be reduced or not
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
