Accuracy of Indirect Veneer Mock-Up in Comparison to Diagnostic Wax-Up

A completely digital workflow to fabricate a double-layered template for anterior esthetic veneers

In the esthetic restoration of anterior teeth, trial restorations are an efficient way of communicating among patients, doctors, and dental laboratory technicians. Although the development of digital technologies has made it popular to design digital diagnostic waxing in a software program, problems such as the polymerization inhibition of silicone materials and time-consuming trimming remain. The silicone mold based on a 3-dimensionally printed resin cast still has to be transferred to the digital diagnostic waxing and to the patient's mouth to generate a trial restoration. A digital workflow is proposed to fabricate a double-layer guide to reproduce the digital diagnostic waxing in the patient's mouth. This technique is suitable for esthetic restorations of anterior teeth.

Accuracy of Direct Composite Veneers via Injectable Resin Composite and Silicone Matrices in Comparison to Diagnostic Wax-Up

Purpose: To evaluate the discrepancy between the diagnostic wax-up and the resulting direct veneers using different matrices. Materials and method: A total of 48 identical misaligned models, 12 wax-up models and one ‘every other tooth’ wax-up model were 3D printed. Group 1: Transparent silicone matrices with holes for the injection of the flowable composite. Group 2: The same procedure as group 1, but the first three teeth were restored using the matrix constructed from the ‘every other tooth’ wax-up model. Group 3: Transparent silicone matrices cut for each tooth and preheated resin composite. Group 4: The same procedure as group 3, but the loaded matrix was placed first in the clear plastic tray, which was used for the matrix’s fabrication. Group 5: Wax-up models (control group). Scans from the veneers were superimposed with the scans from the wax-up and compared using the Patient Monitoring software. Measurements were made at the incisal, middle and cervical third. Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn post-hoc test (p < 0.05) were used to analyze the results. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 and the control. Group 3 was different from the control in the incisal and middle third, and group 4 was different in the cervical third. Conclusions: (1) Use of one or two matrices and the injection of flowable composite were accurate techniques. (2) Use of a matrix for each tooth combined with a pre-heated composite was the most inaccurate technique, but the use of the clear tray in combination with the matrix improved the accuracy.