Minimally Invasive Ceramic Laminate Veneers for Maxillary Anterior Esthetic Rehabilitation: A 12+ Years Follow-Up
- PMID: 40653452
- PMCID: PMC12457873
- DOI: 10.1111/jerd.70001
Minimally Invasive Ceramic Laminate Veneers for Maxillary Anterior Esthetic Rehabilitation: A 12+ Years Follow-Up
Abstract
Objective: This case report describes an esthetic rehabilitation focused on closing diastemas and improving tooth morphology to restore smile harmony using thin porcelain laminates. The advantages, limitations, and characteristics of feldspathic ceramics in laminate fabrication are discussed, highlighting their importance in minimally invasive restorative dentistry.
Clinical considerations: The growing demand for conservative treatments with excellent esthetics has led to an increased use of laminates in different materials and thicknesses. Feldspathic porcelain is highly valued for its exceptional optical properties and ability to produce outstanding esthetic outcomes. A comprehensive clinical assessment, including anamnesis, examination, and mock-up planning, was conducted before fabricating ceramic laminates for all the maxillary anterior teeth. Tooth preparations were minimally invasive and enamel-limited, optimizing the adhesive bonding between glass-ceramic material and tooth substrate. This approach ensured a predictable and long-lasting outcome.
Conclusions: This case report highlights the significance of meticulous planning, appropriate material and technique selection, and precise execution in achieving a durable, functional, and highly esthetic rehabilitation. After 12+ years of follow-up, the patient demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and high satisfaction with the treatment, reinforcing the long-term effectiveness of thin feldspathic laminates in conservative dental restorations.
Keywords: ceramic veneers; long‐term follow‐up; minimally invasive dentistry; tooth preparation.
© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Radz G. M., “Minimum Thickness Anterior Porcelain Restorations,” Dental Clinics of North America 55, no. 2 (2011): 353–370. - PubMed
-
- Tay F. R., Pashley D. H., Yiu C. K. Y., Sanares A. M. E., and Wei S. H. Y., “Factors Contributing to the Incompatibility Between Simplified‐Step Adhesives and Chemical‐Cured or Dual‐Cured Composites. Part I. Single‐Step Self‐Etching Adhesive,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 5, no. 1 (2003): 27–40. - PubMed
-
- Khatri C. A., Stansbury W., Schultheisz C. R., and Antonucci J. M., “Synthesis, Characterization and Evaluation of Urethane Derivatives of Bis‐GMA,” Dental Materials 19, no. 7 (2003): 584–588. - PubMed
-
- Hummel M. and Ker M., “Durability of the Resin Bond Strength to the Alumina Ceramic Procera,” Dental Materials 20, no. 5 (2004): 498–508. - PubMed
-
- Spazzin A. O., Guarda G. B., Oliveira‐Ogliari A., Leal F. B., Correr‐Sobrinho L., and Moraes R. R., “Strengthening of Porcelain Provided by Resin Cements and Flowable Composites,” Operative Dentistry 41, no. 2 (2016): 179–188. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
