A Narrative Review on the Survival and Success Rates of Veneers in Contemporary Dentistry

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry (2025) 33, 409–420

Zirconia Ceramic Literature Review Resin Composite Preparation Designs

Farah Sholji *
(BDS)

Mariamina Papasotiriou *
(BDS)

Cima Abdel Sater *
(BDS)

Anas Aaqel Salim §
(DDS, MSc, PhD)

Christos Theocharides ‡

(BDS, BSc, MFDS RCSEd, MClinDent Pros,
MPros RCSEd)

Address for Correspondence
Mariamina Papasotiriou *
Email: mariaminapapaso@gmail.com
* Department of Dentistry, European University
Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
§

‡

Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry,
Department of Dentistry, European University
Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
Lecturer of Prosthodontics, Department of
Dentistry, European University Cyprus, Nicosia,
Cyprus

Received: 08.12.2024
Accepted: 13.08.2025

A Narrative Review on the
Survival and Success Rates
of Veneers in Contemporary
Dentistry

Objective: This study aims to investigate the survival and success rates of dental veneers based on different material types and preparation designs. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria limited articles to English language published in the last 27 years, resulting in 63 studies. Results: Veneers with minimal preparation designs showed higher survival rates than extensive preparation. Incisal overlap re-establishes anterior guidance, distributing occlusal forces with the most predictable outcomes. Survival and success rates range based on material type and preparation design. Ceramic veneers demonstrated the highest survival and success rates, followed by composite veneers. Indirect composite veneers showed higher survival and success rates than direct composite veneers. Conclusion: Scientific evidence favors minimal preparation designs for better survival rates, with clinician preference guiding design choice. Ceramic veneers consistently demonstrated higher survival and success rates than composite veneers, with both remaining viable options. Indirect composite veneers exhibited higher survival and success rates than direct composite veneers. Decision-making should consider patient needs, operator experience, and restoration longevity goals. Clinical Significance: Selecting an effective and durable prosthodontic treatment is essential in dental practice. Ceramic veneers with minimal preparation design emerged as the most preferable material.

Dental veneers are thin, tooth-colored restorations bonded to the facial surfaces of anterior teeth to enhance aesthetics and restore form and function.1 As patient demand for aesthetic yet conservative treatments continues to rise, veneers have become a cornerstone of contemporary restorative dentistry, offering minimally invasive solutions with high patient satisfaction and predictable outcomes. Veneers are indicated in a variety of clinical situations, including discoloration (such as tetracycline staining, fluorosis, or amelogenesis imperfecta), worn, damaged or fractured teeth, abnormal tooth morphology, minor malpositions, and intraoral repairs of fractured crowns or bridges.2,3 Relative contraindications include parafunctional habits, edge-toedge occlusion, poor oral hygiene, and insufficient enamel.2,3 However, these are not absolute, and must be considered within the context of individual case planning. Poor oral hygiene, while a concern, should not categorically preclude veneer placement. Rather, it highlights the need for appropriate pre-restorative intervention to stabilize the periodontium

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

EJPRD