A Cross-sectional Analysis of Dentists' Clinical Decision-making Regarding Laminate Veneers

Background Given the growing desire for aesthetic results, the goal of restorative procedures should be to provide a great smile. Laminate veneers are among the most conservative treatment choices available and one of the most aesthetically acceptable methods of producing more pleasing smiles for patients. Aim of the Study The study aims to identify clinical decision-making factors that influence dentists' clinical practice for laminate veneers, including dentists' demographics, patients' aesthetic demands, and clinical indications. Additionally, it seeks to compare technique preferences, including preparation designs and material selection, between male and female dentists. Methods This study used a cross-sectional design. Data on clinical decision-making and preferred techniques for laminate veneers were gathered using an online survey. The survey targeted Saudi Arabian dentists working in the governmental and private sectors. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze demographic data and survey responses, examining gender variations in clinical decision-making and procedure preferences. The study design was ethically approved (COD/IRB/2023/2). Participants were informed about the study's goals, confidentiality, and their freedom to discontinue participation at any time. Results A total of 200 dentists (50.5% male, 49.5% female) participated, with the majority being early-career practitioners (77% with ≤5 years of experience) and general practitioners (75%). The data revealed that 56% of dentists perform laminate veneers, with men being substantially more likely to conduct the procedure (59.8% vs . 40.2%, p = 0.003) and handling more patients monthly ( p = 0.036). Laboratory-fabricated ceramic laminate veneers (25.5%) and CAD-CAM veneers (22%) were the most recommended treatments for peg-shaped lateral incisors, with oral hygiene (23.5%) and residual tooth structure (21%) being major factors affecting treatment decisions. Gender-based differences were observed in impression techniques, with males selecting digital (74.2%) and monophase (70.6%) techniques, while females favored one-step (61.2%) and double-step (52.9%) techniques ( p = 0.003). Males were considerably more likely to use digital processes (68.8% vs . 31.3%, p = 0.004). Isolation procedures differed significantly, with females being more likely to utilize rubber dams (59.2% vs . 40.8%, p = 0.032). Additionally, males underwent more retreatment cases (66.7% vs . 33.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusion The study revealed variations in laminate veneer practice treatment among Saudi Arabian dentists. Dentists' years of experience did not affect the performance of laminate veneers. Male dentists were more likely to perform veneers and adopt modern procedures, while female dentists preferred conventional methods.