Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Dentin Exposure after Tooth Preparation for Laminate Veneers: A Microscopical Analysis to Evaluate the Influence of
Roberto Sorrentino1, Gennaro Ruggiero1, Bruna Borelli1
1Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics and Digital Dentistry, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Abstract:
Background: To assess the quantity of dentin exposure detected by 3 operators with different clinical expertise for 2 designs of tooth preparation for laminate veneers: window (WI) and butt joint (BJ). Methods: 20 intact maxillary central incisors were collected and then prepared for laminate veneers to a depth of 0.6 mm, with a cervical mini-chamfer finish line of 0.3 mm. Each prepared tooth was analyzed by 3 operators with different expertise: undergraduate student (ST), general practitioner (GP), and prosthodontist (PR), at sight under magnification. Besides descriptive statistics (CI 95%), 2-way ANOVA and Games−Howell tests were used to analyze differences among groups (α = 0.05). Results: The means of percentage and area of detected dentin exposure were WI = 30.48%, 21.57 mm2; BJ = 30.99%, 21.97 mm2; ST/WI = 22.82%, 16.44 mm2; GP/WI = 58.05%, 40.64 mm2; PR/WI = 10.55%, 7.63 mm2; ST/BJ = 28.99%, 20.83 mm2; GP/BJ = 40.56%, 28.32 mm2; PR/BJ = 23.42%, 16.75 mm2. Significant differences were found between ST/WI vs. GP/WI (p = 0.005) and GP/WI vs. PR/WI (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There was no difference in detection of exposed dentin among operators with different expertise for BJ preparation, whereas differences were found between the general practitioner and the other 2 operators in WI. Moreover, the quantity of exposed dentin was not related to different tooth preparation designs.
