Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 26, 2025

Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
OCT evaluation of the internal adaptation of ceramic veneers depending on preparation design and ceramic thickness
Rainer Haak1, Juliane Siegner1, Dirk Ziebolz1
1Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Objectives:
In-vitro evaluation of the influence of preparation design and thickness of ceramic veneers on the interfacial bond using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Methods:
Sixty-four central incisors were randomly assigned to four preparation designs differing from no to complete dentine exposure (n = 16 each): non-prep (NP), minimal-invasive (MI, no dentine exposure), semi-invasive (SI, 50% dentine) and invasive (I, 100% dentine). Ceramic veneers (IPS InLine Veneer) of two thicknesses (0.2-0.5 mm (T1) and > 0.5-1.2 mm (T2)) were etched, silanized, and adhesively luted (Optibond FL, Variolink Veneer). After water storage (37 °C, 21d), thermocycling (2000 cycles, 5°-55 °C), and mechanical loading (2 + 1 million cycles, 50 + 100 N) specimens were imaged by spectral-domain OCT (Telesto II, Thorlabs). Adhesive defects at the ceramic-composite and tooth-composite interfaces were quantified on 35 equidistantly distributed OCT B-scans (length, %). Statistical differences were verified with Wilcoxon-/Mann-Whitney-U-test (α = 0.05).
Results:
Adhesive defects appeared in all groups at both interfaces, albeit to differing extents (0.1 - 31.7%). NP and MI veneers showed no significant differences at the interfaces (pi > 0.05). In groups, SI and I, significantly more adhesive defects appeared at the tooth-composite compared to the veneer-composite interface (pi ≤ 0.039). The following preparation designs and veneer thicknesses showed differences (pi ≤ 0.021): Veneer-composite: NP-T1 < I-T1, MI-T1 < I-T1, I-T1 > I-T2; Tooth-composite: NP-T1 < SI-T1, NP-T1 < I-T1, NP-T2 > MI-T2, MI-T1 < SI-T1, MI-T1 < I-T1, SI-T1 < I-T1, MI-T2 < SI-T2, MI-T2 < I-T2.
Significance:
The interface adhesion of ceramic veneers was influenced by the preparation design and the veneer thickness. A ceramic thickness of at least 0.5 mm and a preparation without exposing dentine is advantageous for the interfacial bond.
More Related Videos
08:45Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation
Published on: July 21, 2014
08:29Multi-material Ceramic-Based Components – Additive Manufacturing of Black-and-white Zirconia Components by Thermoplastic 3D-Printing (CerAM - T3DP)
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Veneer
Other veneering techniques include plain-slicing, quarter-slicing, and rift-slicing. These...
Porosity in Cement Paste
The balance of water to cement in the mix is...
Brick Durability, Strength, and Appearance