Abstract
The removal of direct composite veneers, when the retreatment is necessary, represents a challenge to the clinician, since the healthy dental structure must be preserved. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy provided by different auxiliary devices during retreatment of direct composite veneers. Seventy-five bovine teeth were prepared for direct composite veneers, scanned (T1), and restored. Specimens were divided into 5 groups for retreatment: conventional high-speed handpiece without auxiliary device (WD); high-speed handpiece with a white LED (WL); high-speed handpiece with an UV light (UL); electric motor and multiplier 1/5 handpiece (EM); and conventional high-speed handpiece using magnifying loupe (ML). After retreatments, other scanning was performed (T2). Changes on dental wear or composite residues areas, as well as, the average between wear and presence of residues were measured. Data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post-test (p≤ 0.05). There were greater areas of wear for ML, being statistically superior to WD and EM groups. The ML presented smaller residues areas, being statistically lower than the WD and EM groups. Regarding the average between wear and the presence of resin residues, additional wear occurred after re-preparation, regardless of the group. Magnifying loupe promoted greater areas of wear and smaller areas of resin residues than conventional high-speed handpiece and electric motor. Both techniques using light accessories did not differ from other ones.
Highlights
The use of veneers is indicated when the patient has abnormalities such as aesthetic deficiencies and color changes [1, 2]
The present study describes an innovative and precise methodology, through scanning and three-dimensional computerized analysis, to assess changes during the retreatment of direct resin composite veneers
No statistical differences were found among groups regarding the time consumption for re-preparation (p 0.05), with following media and standard deviations values in seconds: 357 (±73) for without auxiliary device (WD), 387 (±88) for white light-emitting diode (LED) (WL), 341 (±80) for UV light (UL), 358 (±47) for EM, and 408 (±62) for magnifying loupe (ML)
Summary
The use of veneers is indicated when the patient has abnormalities such as aesthetic deficiencies and color changes [1, 2]. Porcelain veneers show excellent aesthetic results and predictable longevity of the treatment, while direct composite veneers can be considered as a good conservative option, but with less durability [1]. Failures of direct resin composite veneers occurs because of low resistance to staining and wear related to resin composites [2]. It is important to highlight the difficulty of removing resin composite due to its similarity with the remaining dental tissue [3].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
