Question · asked by 1 review

Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer: Restoration failure

Population
Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations
Intervention
Direct resin composite veneer
Comparison
Porcelain (indirect) veneer
Outcome
Restoration failure

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer
Restoration failure (longevity) · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations · 2 years
Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains (2004) · Cochrane All outcomes
Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; porcelain (n=56) 0 absolute and 3…1 study · 125 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains
2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
2003-11Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.