10-year practice-based evaluation of ceramic and direct composite veneers

This 10-year practice-based study aimed to compare survival and success of direct resin composite and ceramic veneers placed in a private dental practice, between January 2008 and March 2014. Data were retrieved from a clinical practice’s records and were anonymized typed into electronic files. All veneer information was recorded, including previous restorations, repairs or failures, materials used, dates, patient, and age. We analyzed 1459 veneer restorations, of which 1043 (71.5%) were direct composite, and 416 (28.5%) were ceramic, placed in 341 patients. The mean patients’ age was 47.8 years, and the mean number of restorations per patient was 4.3 restorations. During all follow-up, 957 (65.6%) veneers were successful without any repair, 252 (17.3%) were repaired and still in place, and 250 (17.1%) had a failure that resulted in replacement. Replacements were usually carried out with the same material placed at first. Considering success analysis, annual failure rates (AFR) for veneers in 5 and 10 years were 9.1% and 10% for direct composite and 2.9% and 2.8% for ceramic, respectively. Survival analysis showed AFR of 3.9% and 4.1% for composite and 1.4% and 1.2% for ceramic at the same periods. Cox regression was made for both success and survival outcomes. Composite veneers presented a higher risk of failure than ceramic veneers with higher hazard ratios for survival (HR) [HR 4.00 (2.74–5.83)] and success [HR 5.16 (2.65–10.04)]. Ceramic veneers had superior longevity than direct composite veneers in both success and survival analysis. •Ceramic veneers show overall higher longevity than composite veneers.•Composite veneers are a more conservative alternative and shows acceptable longevity.•While composite veneers demanded more reinterventions, can be considered long-lasting.