The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed in two different ways, indirect and direct methods over a period of 6-year. 30 volunteer patients without 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 (n=15; indirect method- Componeer, Coltène, Altstätten, Switzerland) or direct composite resin veneers (n=15; direct method- Essentia, GC, Japan). These restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 1-2-6-year by two experienced and blind examiners according to modified Ryge criteria (USPHS criteria). Color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface roughness, retention, and polishing retention were evaluated for that purpose. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and Chi-square tests (p\<0.05).
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Marginal discoloration
Timeframe: 6 years
Marginal adaptation
Timeframe: 6 years
Retention rate
Timeframe: 6 years
Anatomic form
Timeframe: 6 years
Color match
Timeframe: 6 years