# Survival and Complication Rates of Ceramic Partial Coverage Restorations (PCRs) and Ceramic Laminate Veneers Made of Different Types of Ceramics. Consensus Statement From SSRD, SEPES, and PROSEC Conference on Minimally Invasive Restorations

## TL;DR

This paper reviews the survival and complication rates of ceramic dental restorations made from different materials, finding that lithium disilicate performs best in many cases.

## Contribution

The paper provides a consensus on the clinical performance of various ceramic materials in dental restorations based on systematic reviews.

## Key findings

- Lithium disilicate PCRs showed higher short-term survival (93.7%) compared to resin matrix ceramics (89.3%).
- Lithium disilicate veneers had the lowest complication rates compared to feldspathic and leucite-reinforced ceramics.
- All ceramic veneer types showed excellent long-term survival rates, with lithium disilicate at 96.81%.

## Abstract

This consensus paper aims to provide evidence‐based insights into the survival and complication rates of ceramic partial coverage restorations (PCRs) and ceramic laminate veneers, focusing on various ceramic materials, including feldspathic ceramics, leucite‐reinforced glass ceramics (LRGC), lithium disilicate ceramics (LDS), and resin matrix ceramics (RMC).

A systematic screening of the literature identified 35 publications, which were critically reviewed based on PRISMA guidelines, resulting in two systematic reviews. Consensus statements were formulated from the findings of these reviews, addressing key clinical and material‐specific considerations. These statements were subsequently refined and finalized through expert discussion, ensuring alignment with the current evidence base and clinical applicability.

PCRs demonstrated high short‐term survival rates, with 93.7% for LDS and 89.3% for RMC. LDS showed slightly better performance in terms of retention and fracture resistance. Ceramic laminate veneers exhibited excellent long‐term survival rates across all materials, with feldspathic veneers at 96.13%, LRGC at 93.7%, and LDS at 96.81%. LDS ceramic veneers showed a significantly lower complication rate compared to feldspathic and LRGC veneers.

Both PCRs and ceramic laminate veneers are reliable treatment options, offering high survival rates and manageable complication profiles. Material selection and minimally invasive techniques are key to optimizing clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to implement standardized protocols for preparation, adhesive techniques, and long‐term maintenance.