Clinical Evaluation of Aesthetic Rehabilitation of Anterior Teeth Using Componeers, Porcelain Veneers, and Zirconia Veneers – An In Vivo Study (Based on USPHS Criteria)

AbstractBackground: The aesthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth is a cornerstone of modern dentistry, with increasing patient demand for minimally invasive, natural looking solutions.Various veneer systems, including prefabricated composite laminate veneers (Componeers), porcelain veneers, and zirconia veneers, offer different advantages. However, their longterm clinical performance needs comparative evaluation.Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Componeers, porcelain veneers, and zirconia veneers in the aesthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.Materials and Methods: A total of 45 patients (aged 18–40 years) requiring anterior aesthetic rehabilitation were enrolled and divided into three groups (n=15 each): Group A (Componeers), Group B (porcelain veneers), and Group C (zirconia veneers). Veneers were placed following standardized adhesive protocols. Patients were recalled at 6, 12, and 24 months for evaluation using modified USPHS criteria (color match, marginal adaptation, surface texture, marginal discoloration, retention, and secondary caries). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and ANOVA tests, with significance set at p<0.05.Results: At 24 months, zirconia and porcelain veneers demonstrated superior performance compared to Componeers in terms of color stability (p<0.05). Marginal adaptation and surface texture were significantly better in porcelain and zirconia veneers. Componeers exhibited higher incidence of marginal discoloration (20%) and minor surface roughness. No cases of debonding or secondary caries were reported in zirconia veneers, while one debonding occurred in each of the other two groups.Conclusion: Zirconia and porcelain veneers demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes over a 2-year period, while Componeers provided satisfactory short-term aesthetics with the advantage of reduced chair time. Choice of material should balance patient expectations, cost, and long-term prognosis.