Occlusal Veneers: A Minimally Invasive Restorative Option for Posterior Tooth Rehabilitation – A Narrative Review

AbstractOcclusal veneers are gaining widespread recognition as a conservative and biomimetic treatment modality for restoring posterior teeth affected by wear, erosion, or structural compromise. Unlike traditional full coverage crowns, occlusal veneers require minimal tooth reduction and allow preservation of enamel and dentin, thereby enhancing the longevity and biomechanical performance of restorations. This narrative review presents a comprehensive examination of occlusal veneers, discussing their classification, indications, preparation techniques, material options, biomechanical behavior, clinical limitations, and future prospects based on the current literature.Introduction : Preserving tooth structure is critical for the longevity of teeth and restorations. It is advantageous to preserve pulp vitality and delay the need for invasive interventions such as endodontic therapy, posts, and cores, which negatively affect the long-term success of restored teeth. With advancements in optical and mechanical properties of ceramics, CAD/CAM techniques, and adhesive systems, the philosophy of restoration has shifted from aggressive reduction1 to a more conservative, pathology driven approach. The minimally invasive dentistry (MID) approach is pivotal in modern prosthodontics, especially for posterior teeth susceptible to attrition, erosion, and parafunctional habits. Full coverage crowns, while once the gold standard, necessitate excessive removal of tooth structure. In contrast,occlusal veneers are extra-coronal restorations with minimal preparation requirements and 2 provide superior biological, mechanical, and esthetic benefits.Background : Occlusal veneers, also termed veneerlays or vonlays, are fabricated from ceramic, hybrid, or composite materials and restore occlusal morphology without encroaching excessively on axial 3 tooth surfaces. Studies have demonstrated that occlusal veneers preserve more dentin and enamel than crowns, with as little as 1 mm of reduction necessary for success (Edelhoff & Sorensen, 2002). Their long-term survival has been reported as 88.7% over 17 years and 84% 5 over 12 years , supporting their durability. They are particularly advantageous for young 6 patients, esthetically demanding cases, and post endodontic restorations.