RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective, longitudinal clinical study investigated the performance of direct veneers using different composites (microfilled×universal) in vital or non-vital anterior teeth. METHODS: Records from 86 patients were retrieved from a Dental School clinic, comprising 196 direct veneers to be evaluated. The FDI criteria were used to assess the clinical evaluation. The survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test. The multivariate Cox regression with shared frailty was used to investigate the factors associated with failure. RESULTS: A total of 196 veneers were evaluated, with 39 failures. The mean time of service for the veneers was 3.5 years, with a general survival rate of 80.1%. In the qualitative evaluation of the restorations, microfilled composite showed slighty better esthetics. The annual failure rates (AFR) were 4.9% for veneers in vital teeth and 9.8% for non-vital teeth with statistical significance (p=0.009). For microfilled and universal veneers the respective AFRs were 6.0% and 6.2% (p>0.05). Veneers made in non-vital teeth had a higher risk of failure over time compared to those made in vital teeth (HR 2.78; 95% CI 1.02-7.56), but the type of material was not a significant factor (p=0.991). The main reason for failure was fracture of the veneer. CONCLUSION: Direct composite veneers showed a satisfactory clinical performance. Veneers performed in vital teeth showed a better performance than those placed in non-vital teeth. No difference in the survival rate for different composites was found, although microfilled composites showed a slightly better esthetic appearance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Direct composite veneers show good results in esthetic dentistry nowadays. Composite veneers in vital teeth have a lower risk of failure than those in non-vital teeth.
