Overview
CAD/CAM workflows have transformed veneers from a two-week lab process into a procedure that can finish in one visit. The material most commonly milled chairside is lithium disilicate (e.max), a strong glass ceramic with respectable optics. The long-standing alternative is hand-layered feldspathic porcelain — optically nuanced but more labour-intensive.
How they differ in practice
- Lithium disilicate (milled): high flexural strength (~360 MPa), excellent fracture resistance, very predictable shade. Optical depth is good but slightly less "alive" than layered porcelain in extreme close-up.
- Feldspathic (layered): superior optical mimicry of natural enamel translucency, ideal for high-end aesthetic cases — but lower strength and more technique-sensitive.
- Zirconia-reinforced ceramics: strongest of the group, used selectively where fracture risk dominates.
Survival data
Systematic reviews report 5-year veneer survival in the 93–97% range across modern ceramics, with feldspathic and glass ceramics performing similarly; bonded preparations in enamel outperform those bonded to dentin[1][2].
Single-visit considerations
Chairside CAD/CAM compresses the workflow but does not shorten the preparation step. The patient saves the temporary-veneer phase and a second visit; the dentist shoulders milling, characterisation, and glazing time. For 1–2 veneers in functional zones, single-visit can be ideal. For 8–10 unit smile makeovers with mock-up-driven design, lab-layered porcelain still wins on optical refinement in most expert hands.
Frequently asked questions
Scientific references
- 1. Morimoto S, Albanesi RB, Sesma N, Agra CM, Braga MM. (2016). Main clinical outcomes of feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival rates. Int J Prosthodont. 29(1):38-49. View source
- 2. Layton DM, Walton TR. (2012). The up to 21-year clinical outcome and survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont. 25(6):604-12. View source