Abstract Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite veneers (DCVs), indirect composite veneers (ICVs), and ceramic veneers using a minimally invasive tooth preparation technique. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 veneers were placed on the anterior teeth: DCVs ( n = 30), ICVs ( n = 30), and ceramic laminate veneers ( n = 30). Tooth preparations were standardized using magnification (×3 loupes) and depth-marking burs. DCVs were applied using a multilayered stratification technique and finished with a composite polishing kit. ICVs were CAD-CAM fabricated using Gradia HIPS, while ceramic veneers were milled from IPS e.max CAD HT blocks and layered with nanofluorapatite ceramic. All restorations were cemented using adhesive protocols tailored to each material. The restorations were assessed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0 with a significance level of P 0.05). While fractured restorations showed no significant difference at 3 and 6 months, a significant increase was noted at 12 months (11 events; P = 0.02). Conclusion: Indirect composite and ceramic veneers showed superior performance over DCVs in minimizing marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, and restoration fractures.
Patel et al. (Wed,) studied this question.