ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: In-vitro evaluation of the influence of preparation design and thickness of ceramic veneers on the interfacial bond using optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: Sixty-four central incisors were randomly assigned to four preparation designs differing from no to complete dentine exposure (n = 16 each): non-prep (NP), minimal-invasive (MI, no dentine exposure), semi-invasive (SI, 50% dentine) and invasive (I, 100% dentine). Ceramic veneers (IPS InLine Veneer) of two thicknesses (0.2-0.5 mm (T1) and > 0.5-1.2 mm (T2)) were etched, silanized, and adhesively luted (Optibond FL, Variolink Veneer). After water storage (37 °C, 21d), thermocycling (2000 cycles, 5°-55 °C), and mechanical loading (2 + 1 million cycles, 50 + 100 N) specimens were imaged by spectral-domain OCT (Telesto II, Thorlabs). Adhesive defects at the ceramic-composite and tooth-composite interfaces were quantified on 35 equidistantly distributed OCT B-scans (length, %). Statistical differences were verified with Wilcoxon-/Mann-Whitney-U-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Adhesive defects appeared in all groups at both interfaces, albeit to differing extents (0.1 - 31.7%). NP and MI veneers showed no significant differences at the interfaces (pi > 0.05). In groups, SI and I, significantly more adhesive defects appeared at the tooth-composite compared to the veneer-composite interface (pi ≤ 0.039). The following preparation designs and veneer thicknesses showed differences (pi ≤ 0.021): Veneer-composite: NP-T1 < I-T1, MI-T1 < I-T1, I-T1 > I-T2; Tooth-composite: NP-T1 < SI-T1, NP-T1 < I-T1, NP-T2 > MI-T2, MI-T1 < SI-T1, MI-T1 < I-T1, SI-T1 < I-T1, MI-T2 < SI-T2, MI-T2 < I-T2. SIGNIFICANCE: The interface adhesion of ceramic veneers was influenced by the preparation design and the veneer thickness. A ceramic thickness of at least 0.5 mm and a preparation without exposing dentine is advantageous for the interfacial bond.