hru int j dent oral res

HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research

2792-0224

Harran University

10.61139/ijdor.1908133

Dental Materials and Equipment Restorative Dentistry

Diş Malzemeleri ve Ekipmanı Restoratif Diş Tedavisi

Effect of Minimal and Non-Preparation Techniques and Universal Adhesive Systems on the Fracture Resistance of Direct Composite Veneers

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1546-7688

Cangül

Suzan

DİCLE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ, KLİNİK BİLİMLER BÖLÜMÜ, RESTORATİF DİŞ TEDAVİSİ ANABİLİM DALI

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6089-3013

Adıgüzel

Özkan

DICLE UNIVERSITY

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6435-5367

Evran

Begüm

DICLE UNIVERSITY

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-7962

Günay

Ayşe

DICLE UNIVERSITY

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-0955

Sonkaya

Ezgi

CUKUROVA UNIVERSITY

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5183-4474

Taşyürek

Makbule

DICLE UNIVERSITY

04 30 2026

6 1 20 31 03 13 2026 03 25 2026

2021

HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research

Background: Fracture resistance at the interface between the tooth substrate and adhesive systems is a key determinant of the clinical durability of direct composite veneer restorations. Evaluating the influence of different preparation strategies and universal adhesive systems on fracture resistance is essential for improving the predictability of clinical outcomes.Materials and Methods: Forty extracted maxillary incisors were randomly allocated into two groups according to the preparation technique: no preparation and minimal preparation. Each group was further subdivided based on the adhesive system used: Single Bond Universal or Prime & Bond Universal. Direct composite laminate veneers were fabricated for all specimens, which were subsequently embedded in acrylic resin blocks. Fracture resistance was measured. Failure patterns were classified as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test (α=0.05).Results: The lowest bond strength values were observed in the Single Bond Universal no-preparation (SBN) group, whereas the highest values were recorded in the Prime & Bond Universal minimal-preparation (PBM) group. There was no significant statistical difference identified among the groups (p>0.05).Conclusions: Both universal adhesive systems demonstrated clinically acceptable fracture resistance regardless of the preparation technique. Proper treatment planning may contribute to long-term functional and aesthetic success in direct composite veneer restorations.

Adhesives fracture resistance direct composite veneers

1. Korkut B, Yanikoğlu F, Tağtekın D. Ön bölgedeki defektlere direkt kompozit rezin restorasyonlarla estetik yaklaşımlar: 3 olgu sunumu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2012;6:7-15.

2. Burke FJ. Provisional restoration of veneer preparations. Dent Update. 1993;20:433-4.

3. Korkut B, Yanıkoğlu F, Günday M. Direct composite laminate veneers: three case reports. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2013;7(2):105.

4. Re D, Augusti G, Amato M, Riva G, Augusti D. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth with laminates composite veneers. Case Rep Dent. 2014;1.

5. Cangül S, Adıgüzel Özkan, Erpaçal B, Ünal M, Acartürk M, Satıcı Ömer. Evaluation of shear bond strength of amalgam restorations repaired with composite resin by different surface treatments. Int Dent Res. 2019;9(3):105-10.

6. Tokgöz Çetindağ M, Meşe A, Evran B. Evaluation of the effects of different surface treatments on the bond strength of recent CAD-CAM hybrid ceramics. Int Dent Res. 2024;14(3):105-13.

7. Narula H, Goyal V, Verma KG, Jasuja P, Sukhija SJ, Kakkar A. A comparative evaluation of fractural strength and marginal discrepancy of direct composite veneers using four different tooth preparation techniques: An in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2019;37(1):55.

8. Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Özcan M. Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites. Journal of dentistry. 2012;40(9): 766-75.

9. Park SI, Kim Y, Roh BD. The effects of dentin bonding agent thickness on stress distribution of composite-tooth interface: Finite element method. Restor Dent Endod. 2009;34(5):442-9.

10. Kam Hepdeniz O, Temel UB. Clinical survival of No-prep indirect composite laminate veneers: a 7-year prospective case series study. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):257.

11. Mangani F, Cerutti A, Putignano A, Bollero R, Madini L. Clinical approach to anterior adhesive restorations using resin composite veneers. 2007;2(2):188-209.

12. Gresnigt MM, Kalk W, Ozcan M. Randomized clinical trial of indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers: up to 3- year follow-up. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(2):181-90.

13. LeSage B. Establishing a classification system and criteria for veneer preparations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013;34(2):104-12.

14. Eskitaşçıoğlu M, Bozbay R, Ünalan Değirmenci B. Effects of accelerated aging cycles on resin cement-glass ceramic bond strength. Int Dent Res. 2021;11(2):121-8.

15. Durukan SM, Gümüştaş B, Şişmanoğlu S. Shear bond strength of composite to demineralized enamel conditioned with resin infiltration. Int Dent Res. 2022;12(1):114-9.

16. Shetty A, Kaiwar A, Shubhashini N, Ashwini P, Naveen D, Adarsha M, et al. "Survival rates of porcelain laminate restoration based on different incisal preparation designs: An analysis." Journal of conservative dentistry. 2011;14(1):10-5.

17. Alghazzawi T F, et al. Clinical Survival Rate and Laboratory Failure of Dental Veneers. Journal of Prosthodontics, 2024;33(5):412-23.

18. Celik N, Yapar MI, Taşpınar N, Seven N. The effect of polymerization and preparation techniques on the microleakage of composite laminate veneers. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2017;8(3):400-4.

19. Bourgi R, Hardan L, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Devoto W, Kassis C, Kharma K, et al. Effectiveness of different application modalities on the bond performance of four polymeric adhesive systems to dentin. Polymers. 2023;15(19):3924.

20. Seitz E, Hjortsjö C, Dahl JE, Saxegaard E. Dentin to dentin adhesion using combinations of resin cements and adhesives from different manufacturers - a novel approach. Biomater Investig Dent. 2020;7(1):96-104.

21. Balkaya H, Çetiner H, Demirbuğa S. Kompozit Rezinlerde Güncel Gelişmeler. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2025;12(1):137-43.

22. Bas A, Çelikel P. Evaluation of the effect of shelf life of different universal bond systems on dentin bonding. Int Dent Res. 2024;14(3):129-34.

23. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three year clinical re sults. Br Dent J. 1995;179:343-9.

24. Thordup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int. 2006;37:139-44.

25. Bagis B, Aydoğan E, Bagis YH. Direct restorative treatment of missing maxillary laterals with composite laminate veneer: a case report. Open Dent J. 2008;2:93-5.

26. Çelik Ç, Gemalmaz D. Comparison of marginal integrity of ceramic and composite veneer restorations luted with two different resin agents: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(1):59-64.

27. Peutzfeldt A, Hug T, Wierichs RJ. Bond strength and marginal adaptation of resin composites and correlations with clinical results. Dental Materials. 2024;40(6):966-75.

28. Karagözoğlu İrem, Aksel L. Bonding performance of different types of expired and unexpired composite resin cements. Int Dent Res. 2023;13(2):54-9.

29. Herrmann G, Reimann S, Daratsianos N, et al. Comparison of different standardised bond strength tests and the influence of glycine powder treatment in composite resin repairs. Int Dent Res. 2020;10(2):36-43.

30. Kama J. Conservative treatment of cracked tooth syndrome using Ribbond fibrereinforced composite resin. Dental Products Report. 2000:48-9.

31. Gürbulak AG, Demircan A. Geçmişten Günümüze Porselen Laminate Veneerlerde Preparasyon Teknikleri: Bir Literatür Değerlendirmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;21(2):136-42.

32. Ge C, Green CC, Sederstrom DA, McLaren EA, Chalfant JA, White SN. Effect of tooth substrate and porcelain thickness on porcelain veneer failure loads in vitro. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:85-91.

33. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28(3):215-35.

34. Pradeep S, Shetty N, Kotian R, Shenoy R, Saluja I. Evaluation of shear bond strength of various adhesives under simulated intrapulpal pressure: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2021;24(2):169-73.

35. Sirisha K, Rambabu T, Ravishankar Y, Ravikumar P. Validity of bond strength tests: A critical review Part II. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17:420 6.

36. Hegde MN, Bhandary S. An evaluation and comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin, using newer dentin bonding agents. J Conserv Dent. 2008;11:71 5.

37. Shafiei F, Memarpour M. Effect of repeated use on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems: All in one and one bottle. Indian J Dent Res. 2009;20:180 4.

38. Poggio C, Beltrami R, Colombo M, Chiesa M, Scribante A. Influence of dentin pretreatment on bond strength of universal adhesives. Acta biomaterialia odontologica Scandinavica, 2017;3(1):30-5.

39. Weimann D, Fleck C, Razi H. Marginal integrity in minimally invasive molar resin composite restorations: Impact of polymerization shrinkage. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2024;155:106554.

40. Zorba YO, Ilday NO, Bayındır YZ, Demirbuga S. Comparing the shear bond strength of direct and indirect composite inlays in relation to different surface conditioning and curing techniques. European journal of dentistry. 2013;7(04):436-41.