Question · asked by 1 review
Indirect veneer with no incisal edge reduction vs Indirect veneer with incisal edge reduction (1.5 mm plus short palatal bevel): Restoration longevity
- Population
- Patients receiving indirect laminate veneer restorations on permanent anterior teeth
- Intervention
- Indirect veneer with no incisal edge reduction
- Comparison
- Indirect veneer with incisal edge reduction (1.5 mm plus short palatal bevel)
- Outcome
- Restoration longevity
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Indirect veneer with no incisal edge reduction vs Indirect veneer with incisal edge reduction (1.5 mm plus short palatal bevel) Restoration survival (longevity) · Patients receiving indirect laminate veneer restorations on permanent anterior teeth · 2 years Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains (2004) · Cochrane All outcomes | Meijering 1998 (Table 3): survival percentages by preparation type at 2 years (original/functional/overall) - no incisal edge reduction 98/97/95; incisal reduction 95/90/87. No statistical comparison performed. | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2003-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.