Clinical comparison of prefabricated indirect composite resin veneers and direct composite resin veneers

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed in two different ways, indirect and direct methods. 30 volunteer patients without any systemic diseases and who applied to Ege University School of Dentistry for the esthetic restoration of their anterior diastema (gap) were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The closure of 102 diastema was randomly performed with prefabricated composite resin veneers (indirect method- Componeer, Coltene) or direct composite resin veneers (direct method- Essentia, GC). These restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 6 months and 12 months by two experienced and blind examiners according to modified Ryge criteria (USPHS criteria). For that purpose, colour match, marginal discolouration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface roughness, retention and polishing retention were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and Chi-square tests (p<0.05). As a result, direct composite resin veneers and indirect prefabricated composite resin veneers were both found clinically successfull and the patients were satisfied after one-year of evaluation. There was no statistically significant differences between the groups