xml: <clinical_study>
    <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
      https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
    <required_header>
      <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
      <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
      <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05998980</url>
    </required_header>
    <id_info>
      <org_study_id>16-2.1/8</org_study_id>
      <nct_id>NCT05998980</nct_id>
    </id_info>
    <brief_title>6-year Clinical Performance of Prefabricated and Composite Veneers ( Componeer)</brief_title>
    <official_title>Clinical Comparison of Prefabricated Resin Composite Veneers and Direct Resin Composite Veneers Over 6-years</official_title>
    <sponsors>
      <lead_sponsor>
        <agency>Ege University</agency>
        <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
      </lead_sponsor>
    </sponsors>
    <source>Ege University</source>
    <oversight_info>
      <has_dmc>No</has_dmc>
      <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
      <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
    </oversight_info>
    <brief_summary>
      <textblock>
        The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed&#xD;
        in two different ways, indirect and direct methods over a period of 6-year.&#xD;
  &#xD;
        30 volunteer patients without systemic diseases and who applied to Ege University School of&#xD;
        Dentistry for the esthetic restoration of their anterior diastema (gap) were selected&#xD;
        according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The closure of 102 diastema was randomly&#xD;
        performed with prefabricated composite resin veneers (n=15; indirect method- Componeer,&#xD;
        Coltène, Altstätten, Switzerland) or direct composite resin veneers (n=15; direct method-&#xD;
        Essentia, GC, Japan). These restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 1-2-6-year by&#xD;
        two experienced and blind examiners according to modified Ryge criteria (USPHS criteria).&#xD;
        Color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries,&#xD;
        surface roughness, retention, and polishing retention were evaluated for that purpose.&#xD;
        Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and Chi-square tests (p&lt;0.05).&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </brief_summary>
    <detailed_description>
      <textblock>
        The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed&#xD;
        in two different ways, indirect (Componeer) and direct methods (Essentia) over a period of&#xD;
        6-year.&#xD;
  &#xD;
        The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey&#xD;
        (16-2.1/8; 01.04.2016). 30 patients without any systemic diseases (10 males, 20 females, mean&#xD;
        age: 34) and with aesthetic complaints on their anterior teeth were treated with 102&#xD;
        restorations (48 Componeer and 54 Essentia).&#xD;
  &#xD;
        In Group 1; 48 teeth (15 patients) were restored with Componeer prefabricated veneers&#xD;
        (Coltène, Altstätten, Switzerland) in combination with Synergy D6 nanohybrid resin composite&#xD;
        (Coltène) and One Coat Bond (Coltène) adhesive system. In Group 2; 54 teeth (15 patients)&#xD;
        were restored with Essentia (GC, Japan) micro-hybrid resin composite in combination with&#xD;
        G-Premio Bond (GC) adhesive system.&#xD;
  &#xD;
        Periodontal treatments, fillings, and bleaching treatments were performed, if necessary,&#xD;
        before any veneer treatment. For the pre-treatment records; 3 photographs (smile, anterior&#xD;
        occlusion, and upper anterior teeth alone) were taken from each patient. Both groups used the&#xD;
        &quot;Button Try&quot; technique for color selection. Componeer sizing guide was used for size&#xD;
        selection in Group 1. Then teeth were cleaned with non-fluoride pumice (Cleanic; Kerr Dental,&#xD;
        ABD) using a polishing brush. Isolation of the teeth and retraction of the lips were achieved&#xD;
        with a rubber dam (OptraDam, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein). Prefabricated veneers were&#xD;
        prepared for the cementation process in Group 1. Then the labial surfaces were etched using&#xD;
        36% phosphoric acid for 30 s. The etched surfaces were rinsed for 30 s and dried. One Coat&#xD;
        Bond (Coltene) adhesive system was applied on the labial surfaces of the teeth in accordance&#xD;
        with user instructions in both groups. In Group 1; Synergy D6 nano hybrid resin composite was&#xD;
        placed on the inner surfaces of the prefabricated veneers before being applied on appropriate&#xD;
        teeth. Then the restorations were light-cured for 40 s from each surface (D-Light Pro, GC)&#xD;
        and polished with a polishing paste (Prisma Gloss Extra Fine, Dentsply, NY, ABD) and a felt&#xD;
        wheel.&#xD;
  &#xD;
        In Group 2; Essentia (GC) micro-hybrid resin composite with dentin color was placed on the&#xD;
        labial surfaces of the teeth and light-cured (D-Light Pro, GC). After that layer, Essentia&#xD;
        enamel shades were placed over the labial surface of the tooth and light-cured for 20 s from&#xD;
        each surface. The diamond bur contouring was performed and polishing discs (Super-Snap&#xD;
        Rainbow Technique Kit, SHOFU) were used. For polishing purposes, a polishing paste (Prisma&#xD;
        Gloss Extra Fine, Dentsply, NY, ABD) and a felt Wheel were used.&#xD;
  &#xD;
        In group 1; gingival borders were adapted with contouring and polishing discs (Super-Snap&#xD;
        Rainbow Technique Kit, SHOFU). Then proximal surfaces were polished using proximal sandpaper&#xD;
        strips. Occlusion was checked for premature contacts. Two calibrated observers who were&#xD;
        blinded to the objective of this study performed the evaluations. Color match, marginal&#xD;
        adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, retention, secondary caries, and gloss&#xD;
        retention were the properties evaluated for the restorations at baseline, 1-2-6-year using&#xD;
        Modified Ryge Criteria (USPHS Criteria). Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and&#xD;
        Chi-square tests (p&lt;0.05).&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </detailed_description>
    <overall_status>Completed</overall_status>
    <start_date type="Actual">July 1, 2016</start_date>
    <completion_date type="Actual">January 15, 2017</completion_date>
    <primary_completion_date type="Actual">December 30, 2016</primary_completion_date>
    <phase>N/A</phase>
    <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
    <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
    <study_design_info>
      <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
      <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
      <intervention_model_description>Individual Randomized Assignment</intervention_model_description>
      <primary_purpose>Treatment</primary_purpose>
      <masking>Double (Participant, Care Provider)</masking>
      <masking_description>Double (Participant, Evaluator)</masking_description>
    </study_design_info>
    <primary_outcome>
      <measure>Marginal discoloration</measure>
      <time_frame>6 years</time_frame>
      <description>Marginal discoloration of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal discoloration by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed. A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.&#xD;
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.&#xD;
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.</description>
    </primary_outcome>
    <primary_outcome>
      <measure>Marginal adaptation</measure>
      <time_frame>6 years</time_frame>
      <description>Marginal adaptation of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.&#xD;
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.&#xD;
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.</description>
    </primary_outcome>
    <primary_outcome>
      <measure>Retention rate</measure>
      <time_frame>6 years</time_frame>
      <description>Retention rates of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rates by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.&#xD;
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.&#xD;
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.</description>
    </primary_outcome>
    <primary_outcome>
      <measure>Anatomic form</measure>
      <time_frame>6 years</time_frame>
      <description>Anatomic form of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding anatomic form by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed. A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.&#xD;
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.&#xD;
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.</description>
    </primary_outcome>
    <primary_outcome>
      <measure>Color match</measure>
      <time_frame>6 years</time_frame>
      <description>Color changes of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Health Service criteria regarding color changes by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.&#xD;
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.&#xD;
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction</description>
    </primary_outcome>
    <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
    <enrollment type="Actual">21</enrollment>
    <condition>Dental Diseases</condition>
    <condition>Tooth Discoloration</condition>
    <arm_group>
      <arm_group_label>Componeer Prefabricated Veneers</arm_group_label>
      <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
      <description>Componeer veneers (device 1) were randomly applied to patients. The teeth were evaluated in terms of color and size matching in order to select the correct veneers. Componeer sizing guide was used for size selection. Prefabricated veneers were adapted to the teeth' surfaces. Then, the inner surfaces of the prefabricated veneers were roughened to obtain better mechanical retention. Then the labial surfaces of the teeth were etched using 36% phosphoric acid. The etched surfaces were rinsed and dried. An adhesive system was applied to the teeth. Prefabricated veneers' inner surfaces were cleaned with alcohol, and One Coat dental adhesive was applied. Synergy D6 nanohybrid resin composite was placed on the inner surfaces of the veneers and transferred to the teeth. The restorations were light-cured for 40 s Gingival borders were adapted with contouring and polishing discs (intervention 1).</description>
    </arm_group>
    <arm_group>
      <arm_group_label>Essentia resin composite venners</arm_group_label>
      <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
      <description>Direct resin composite restorations were randomly applied to patients. Essentia resin composite (device 2) shade guide was used for color selection. After the preparation, the labial surfaces of the teeth were etched using 36% phosphoric acid. The etched surfaces were then rinsed and dried. An adhesive system G-Premio Bond was applied to the teeth. Then Essentia micro-hybrid resin composite with dentin shade was placed on labial surfaces of teeth and was light-cured. Then enamel shade was placed on the tooth. After that, the resin composite veneer was light-cured for 20 s from each surface. Proximal surfaces were polished using proximal sandpaper strips (intervention 2).</description>
    </arm_group>
    <intervention>
      <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
      <intervention_name>Componeer prefabricated veneers</intervention_name>
      <description>Individual Randomized Clinical Trial</description>
      <arm_group_label>Componeer Prefabricated Veneers</arm_group_label>
    </intervention>
    <intervention>
      <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
      <intervention_name>Essentia resin composite veneers</intervention_name>
      <description>Individual Randomized Clinical Trial</description>
      <arm_group_label>Essentia resin composite venners</arm_group_label>
    </intervention>
    <eligibility>
      <criteria>
        <textblock>
          Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Being healthy without any chronic disease&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Having diastema in the anterior teeth without any caries&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Not having an occlusal anomaly such as bruxism or anterior crossbite&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Having a good oral hygiene&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Agreeing to come to the recall sessions regularly for 6 years&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Being over the age of 18&#xD;
  &#xD;
          Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
  &#xD;
          Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Having uncontrolled parafunction such as bruxism or anterior deep bite&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Having insufficient oral hygiene&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Being pregnant&#xD;
  &#xD;
            -  Having a systemic disease&#xD;
        </textblock>
      </criteria>
      <gender>All</gender>
      <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
      <maximum_age>60 Years</maximum_age>
      <healthy_volunteers>Accepts Healthy Volunteers</healthy_volunteers>
    </eligibility>
    <overall_official>
      <last_name>Sebnem L Turkun, DDS,PhD</last_name>
      <role>Study Director</role>
      <affiliation>Ege University</affiliation>
    </overall_official>
    <location>
      <facility>
        <name>Ege University School of Dentistry Department of Restorative</name>
        <address>
          <city>İzmir</city>
          <state>Bornova</state>
          <zip>35040</zip>
          <country>Turkey</country>
        </address>
      </facility>
    </location>
    <location_countries>
      <country>Turkey</country>
    </location_countries>
    <verification_date>August 2023</verification_date>
    <study_first_submitted>August 11, 2023</study_first_submitted>
    <study_first_submitted_qc>August 16, 2023</study_first_submitted_qc>
    <study_first_posted type="Actual">August 21, 2023</study_first_posted>
    <last_update_submitted>August 16, 2023</last_update_submitted>
    <last_update_submitted_qc>August 16, 2023</last_update_submitted_qc>
    <last_update_posted type="Actual">August 21, 2023</last_update_posted>
    <responsible_party>
      <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
      <investigator_affiliation>Ege University</investigator_affiliation>
      <investigator_full_name>Sebnem Turkun</investigator_full_name>
      <investigator_title>Prof. Dr</investigator_title>
    </responsible_party>
    <keyword>veneers</keyword>
    <keyword>prefabricated veneers</keyword>
    <keyword>anterior restorations</keyword>
    <condition_browse>
      <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
      <mesh_term>Stomatognathic Diseases</mesh_term>
      <mesh_term>Tooth Discoloration</mesh_term>
    </condition_browse>
    <patient_data>
      <sharing_ipd>No</sharing_ipd>
    </patient_data>
    <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
  </clinical_study>
  
  
text: download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
  link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
  url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05998980
  org study id: 16-2.1/8
  nct id: NCT05998980
  lead sponsor: 
  has dmc: No
  is fda regulated drug: No
  is fda regulated device: No
  The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed
        in two different ways, indirect and direct methods over a period of 6-year.
  
        30 volunteer patients without systemic diseases and who applied to Ege University School of
        Dentistry for the esthetic restoration of their anterior diastema (gap) were selected
        according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The closure of 102 diastema was randomly
        performed with prefabricated composite resin veneers (n=15; indirect method- Componeer,
        Coltène, Altstätten, Switzerland) or direct composite resin veneers (n=15; direct method-
        Essentia, GC, Japan). These restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 1-2-6-year by
        two experienced and blind examiners according to modified Ryge criteria (USPHS criteria).
        Color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries,
        surface roughness, retention, and polishing retention were evaluated for that purpose.
        Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and Chi-square tests (p<0.05).
  The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of composite veneers performed
        in two different ways, indirect (Componeer) and direct methods (Essentia) over a period of
        6-year.
  
        The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
        (16-2.1/8; 01.04.2016). 30 patients without any systemic diseases (10 males, 20 females, mean
        age: 34) and with aesthetic complaints on their anterior teeth were treated with 102
        restorations (48 Componeer and 54 Essentia).
  
        In Group 1; 48 teeth (15 patients) were restored with Componeer prefabricated veneers
        (Coltène, Altstätten, Switzerland) in combination with Synergy D6 nanohybrid resin composite
        (Coltène) and One Coat Bond (Coltène) adhesive system. In Group 2; 54 teeth (15 patients)
        were restored with Essentia (GC, Japan) micro-hybrid resin composite in combination with
        G-Premio Bond (GC) adhesive system.
  
        Periodontal treatments, fillings, and bleaching treatments were performed, if necessary,
        before any veneer treatment. For the pre-treatment records; 3 photographs (smile, anterior
        occlusion, and upper anterior teeth alone) were taken from each patient. Both groups used the
        "Button Try" technique for color selection. Componeer sizing guide was used for size
        selection in Group 1. Then teeth were cleaned with non-fluoride pumice (Cleanic; Kerr Dental,
        ABD) using a polishing brush. Isolation of the teeth and retraction of the lips were achieved
        with a rubber dam (OptraDam, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein). Prefabricated veneers were
        prepared for the cementation process in Group 1. Then the labial surfaces were etched using
        36% phosphoric acid for 30 s. The etched surfaces were rinsed for 30 s and dried. One Coat
        Bond (Coltene) adhesive system was applied on the labial surfaces of the teeth in accordance
        with user instructions in both groups. In Group 1; Synergy D6 nano hybrid resin composite was
        placed on the inner surfaces of the prefabricated veneers before being applied on appropriate
        teeth. Then the restorations were light-cured for 40 s from each surface (D-Light Pro, GC)
        and polished with a polishing paste (Prisma Gloss Extra Fine, Dentsply, NY, ABD) and a felt
        wheel.
  
        In Group 2; Essentia (GC) micro-hybrid resin composite with dentin color was placed on the
        labial surfaces of the teeth and light-cured (D-Light Pro, GC). After that layer, Essentia
        enamel shades were placed over the labial surface of the tooth and light-cured for 20 s from
        each surface. The diamond bur contouring was performed and polishing discs (Super-Snap
        Rainbow Technique Kit, SHOFU) were used. For polishing purposes, a polishing paste (Prisma
        Gloss Extra Fine, Dentsply, NY, ABD) and a felt Wheel were used.
  
        In group 1; gingival borders were adapted with contouring and polishing discs (Super-Snap
        Rainbow Technique Kit, SHOFU). Then proximal surfaces were polished using proximal sandpaper
        strips. Occlusion was checked for premature contacts. Two calibrated observers who were
        blinded to the objective of this study performed the evaluations. Color match, marginal
        adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, retention, secondary caries, and gloss
        retention were the properties evaluated for the restorations at baseline, 1-2-6-year using
        Modified Ryge Criteria (USPHS Criteria). Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar and
        Chi-square tests (p<0.05).
  allocation: Randomized
  intervention model: Parallel Assignment
  intervention model description: Individual Randomized Assignment
  primary purpose: Treatment
  masking: Double (Participant, Care Provider)
  masking description: Double (Participant, Evaluator)
  measure: Marginal discoloration
  time frame: 6 years
  description: Marginal discoloration of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal discoloration by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed. A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.
  measure: Marginal adaptation
  time frame: 6 years
  description: Marginal adaptation of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.
  measure: Retention rate
  time frame: 6 years
  description: Retention rates of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rates by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.
  measure: Anatomic form
  time frame: 6 years
  description: Anatomic form of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Evaluating differently veneer options on anterior teeth with United State Public Health Service criteria regarding anatomic form by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed. A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.
  measure: Color match
  time frame: 6 years
  description: Color changes of prefabricated and resin composite veneers Health Service criteria regarding color changes by 2 independent evaluators Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced.
  Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth.
  Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction
  arm group label: Componeer Prefabricated Veneers
  arm group type: Active Comparator
  description: Componeer veneers (device 1) were randomly applied to patients. The teeth were evaluated in terms of color and size matching in order to select the correct veneers. Componeer sizing guide was used for size selection. Prefabricated veneers were adapted to the teeth' surfaces. Then, the inner surfaces of the prefabricated veneers were roughened to obtain better mechanical retention. Then the labial surfaces of the teeth were etched using 36% phosphoric acid. The etched surfaces were rinsed and dried. An adhesive system was applied to the teeth. Prefabricated veneers' inner surfaces were cleaned with alcohol, and One Coat dental adhesive was applied. Synergy D6 nanohybrid resin composite was placed on the inner surfaces of the veneers and transferred to the teeth. The restorations were light-cured for 40 s Gingival borders were adapted with contouring and polishing discs (intervention 1).
  arm group label: Essentia resin composite venners
  arm group type: Active Comparator
  description: Direct resin composite restorations were randomly applied to patients. Essentia resin composite (device 2) shade guide was used for color selection. After the preparation, the labial surfaces of the teeth were etched using 36% phosphoric acid. The etched surfaces were then rinsed and dried. An adhesive system G-Premio Bond was applied to the teeth. Then Essentia micro-hybrid resin composite with dentin shade was placed on labial surfaces of teeth and was light-cured. Then enamel shade was placed on the tooth. After that, the resin composite veneer was light-cured for 20 s from each surface. Proximal surfaces were polished using proximal sandpaper strips (intervention 2).
  intervention type: Procedure
  intervention name: Componeer prefabricated veneers
  description: Individual Randomized Clinical Trial
  arm group label: Componeer Prefabricated Veneers
  intervention type: Procedure
  intervention name: Essentia resin composite veneers
  description: Individual Randomized Clinical Trial
  arm group label: Essentia resin composite venners
  criteria: 
  gender: All
  minimum age: 18 Years
  maximum age: 60 Years
  healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
  last name: Sebnem L Turkun, DDS,PhD
  role: Study Director
  affiliation: Ege University
  facility: 
  country: Turkey
  responsible party type: Principal Investigator
  investigator affiliation: Ege University
  investigator full name: Sebnem Turkun
  investigator title: Prof. Dr
  mesh term: Stomatognathic Diseases
  mesh term: Tooth Discoloration
  sharing ipd: No