Dentin Exposure after Tooth Preparation for Laminate Veneers: A Microscopical Analysis to Evaluate the Influence of Operators' Expertise

• Published in: Materials Vol. 15; no. 5; p. 1763
• Main Authors: Sorrentino, Roberto, Ruggiero, Gennaro, Borelli, Bruna, Barlattani, Alberta, Zarone, Fernando
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 26.02.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Aesthetics; Butt joints; cad/cam; ceramics; Cervix; Chamfering; Dentin; Enamel; Exposure; minimally invasive; Operators; porcelain; Statistical tests; Teeth; Veneers; Italy; Austria; United States > US; Germany; cad/cam; ceramics; porcelain; esthetic dentistry; veneers; dentin; minimally invasive; laminate veneers; veneer preparation; tooth preparation
• ISSN: 1996-1944; 1996-1944
• DOI: 10.3390/ma15051763

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.