How This Guide Chooses and Checks Its Sources

Written and reviewed by CJ Henley, DMD, general dentist, Jacksonville, FL Reviewed Oct 2026

Most cosmetic dentistry pages give you a number with no source. This guide works the other way: every study number comes from one list of peer-reviewed research that I have read and approved, so the same figure says the same thing on every page.

Short answer

Each number in this guide is checked against the published study, written in plain English, and stored in one reviewed list. Systematic reviews of many studies count as the strongest evidence. Single-practice and lab studies are labeled as such. The list is reviewed at least every 6 months.

Studies on the list23 peer-reviewed sources
Checked againstThe published abstract on PubMed
Reviewed byCJ Henley, DMD
Next full reviewApril 2027
On this page
  1. How numbers get into this guide
  2. How evidence is graded on these pages
  3. Research vs my opinion
  4. The full source list
  5. What was left out, and why
  6. Questions about this guide
  7. Sources

How numbers get into this guide

A study number only appears here after it has been checked against the published paper and approved.

  1. Find the best available research. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses come first, because they pool many studies. Long-term clinical studies and large practice records come next.
  2. Check every number against the study itself. Each figure is matched to the study's published abstract on PubMed. If a number circulating online is not in the paper, it is left out.
  3. Write it in plain English, once. Each finding becomes one approved sentence, stored with the exact value, the study design and its limits.
  4. Reuse the same sentence everywhere. Pages pull from that one list, so a number cannot drift from page to page.
  5. Review on a schedule. The list is reviewed at least every 6 months, and sooner when an important new review is published.

How evidence is graded on these pages

Each study in a table carries a simple strength label so you can see how much weight it deserves.

LabelWhat it meansExamples on this site
StrongA systematic review or meta-analysis that pools many clinical studies.Alenezi 20211, Klein 20252, Pjetursson 20263
ModerateA long-term clinical study, a randomized trial, or large records from real practices.Beier 20124, Burke and Lucarotti 20095, Mazzetti 20226
LimitedLab studies, small or short trials, and expert reviews. Useful for direction, not for exact predictions.Edelhoff and Sorensen 20027, Fawakhiri 20238

Research vs my opinion

Where the research is split, the guide says so, and my own approach is labeled as my approach.

Some questions do not have a settled answer. A good example is whether a veneer should wrap over the biting edge of the tooth: three reviews reached three different conclusions.1,9,10 In cases like that, you will see the research first and then a clearly marked note on what I do and why. The research is split on whether a veneer should wrap over the biting edge. My approach is to wrap it.

The full source list

These are all of the studies the guide currently draws on, grouped by topic.

Veneer lifespan

Morimoto 201610, Layton 201211, Layton and Walton 201212, Layton and Clarke 201313, Beier 20124, Alenezi 20211, Burke and Lucarotti 20095, Hong 20179.

Materials

Klein 20252, Fawakhiri 20238, Pjetursson 20263, Sailer 201514, Malament 201915.

Tooth preparation and bonding

Edelhoff and Sorensen 20027, Alqutaibi 202516, Gassara 202517, Lin 202518.

Composite and bonding

Demarco 201519, Mazzetti 20226, Lim 202320.

Whitening

Terra 202521, Cordeiro 202522, Kury 202523.

What was left out, and why

Some figures that circulate online did not make the list because they could not be matched to the published study.

  • Several older reviews quoted on other websites could not be checked against a published abstract, so their numbers are not used.
  • One whitening review reported a sensitivity figure that did not match its own statistics. The direction of the finding is used. The number is not.
  • A widely repeated claim that a veneer removes "3 to 30 percent of the visible tooth" is close but not exact. The study measured tooth structure by weight, on model teeth, and its range included other kinds of preparations. This guide describes it that way.

Questions about this guide

Who writes this guide?

I do, with help drafting and researching. Every page is reviewed and approved by me, CJ Henley, DMD, a general dentist in San Marco, Jacksonville. See Meet the Doctor.

Is this guide sponsored?

No. No product company, lab or manufacturer pays for or reviews any page.

Why do your numbers differ from other websites?

Many sites repeat a round number such as "10 to 15 years" without a source. This guide reports what specific studies found, and explains why studies disagree. See why veneer lifespan numbers disagree.

What if I find an error?

Please tell us. Call the office at (904) 398-1549. Corrections are made promptly and the review date on the page is updated.

Is this medical advice?

No. It is general education. The right treatment for your teeth depends on an exam.

More from the Cosmetic Dentistry Guide

LongevityHow long do veneers last?EvidenceWhy veneer lifespan numbers don't agreeMaterialsCosmetic dental materials compared

Sources

  1. Alenezi A, Alsweed M, Alsidrani S, Chrcanovic BR. Long-Term Survival and Complication Rates of Porcelain Laminate Veneers in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med 2021;10(5):1074. doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051074
  2. Klein P, Spitznagel FA, Zembic A, Prott LS, Pieralli S, Bongaerts B, Metzendorf MI, Langner R, Gierthmuehlen PC. Survival and Complication Rates of Feldspathic, Leucite-Reinforced, Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent 2025;37(3):601-619. doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13351
  3. Pjetursson BE, Pitta J, Balet A, Bjarnadottir GR, Sailer I, Romandini P. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Evaluating the Survival, Failure, and Complication Rates of Metal-Ceramic, Veneered, and Monolithic All-Ceramic Tooth-Supported Single Crowns, Part 1. Int J Prosthodont 2026;39(3):308-324. doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9633
  4. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(1):79-85. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22259802/
  5. Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. Ten-year outcome of porcelain laminate veneers placed within the general dental services in England and Wales. J Dent 2009;37(1):31-8. doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.016
  6. Mazzetti T, Collares K, Rodolfo B, da Rosa Rodolpho PA, van de Sande FH, Cenci MS. 10-year practice-based evaluation of ceramic and direct composite veneers. Dent Mater 2022;38(5):898-906. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.03.007
  7. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):503-9. doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.124094
  8. Fawakhiri HA, Abboud S, Kanout S. A 3-year controlled clinical trial comparing high-translucency zirconia (cubic zirconia) with lithium disilicate glass ceramic (e.max). Clin Exp Dent Res 2023;9(6):1078-1088. doi.org/10.1002/cre2.790
  9. Hong N, Yang H, Li J, Wu S, Li Y. Effect of Preparation Designs on the Prognosis of Porcelain Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Oper Dent 2017;42(6):E197-E213. doi.org/10.2341/16-390-L
  10. Morimoto S, Albanesi RB, Sesma N, Agra CM, Braga MM. Main Clinical Outcomes of Feldspathic Porcelain and Glass-Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survival and Complication Rates. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29(1):38-49. doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4315
  11. Layton DM, Clarke M, Walton TR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(6):590-603. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23101039/
  12. Layton DM, Walton TR. The up to 21-year clinical outcome and survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers: accounting for clustering. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(6):604-12. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23101040/
  13. Layton DM, Clarke M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26(2):111-24. doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3202
  14. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015;31(6):603-23. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011
  15. Malament KA, Natto ZS, Thompson V, Rekow D, Eckert S, Weber HP. Ten-year survival of pressed, acid-etched e.max lithium disilicate monolithic and bilayered complete-coverage restorations: Performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position and age. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(5):782-790. doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.024
  16. Alqutaibi AY, Saker S, Alghauli MA, Algabri RS, AbdElaziz MH. Clinical survival and complication rate of ceramic veneers bonded to different substrates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2025;134(4):1030-1039. doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.019
  17. Gassara Y, Ben Mariem A, Chebil M, Kallala R, Nouira Z, Saafi J, Harzallah B, Cherif M. Laser-assisted debonding of ceramic veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2025;134(4):1040-1051. doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.001
  18. Lin J, Bennani V, Aarts JM, Brunton P, Ratnayake J. Factors influencing success rate of ceramic veneers on endodontically treated anterior teeth: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2025;133(1):62-70. doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.10.031
  19. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015;31(10):1214-24. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.005
  20. Lim TW, Tan SK, Li KY, Burrow MF. Survival and complication rates of resin composite laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2023;23(4):101911. doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101911
  21. Terra RMO, Favoreto MW, Morris T, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effect of at-home bleaching agents and concentrations on tooth sensitivity: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent 2025;160:105891. doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105891
  22. Cordeiro DCF, Naupari-Villasante R, Condolo LC, Terra RMO, Favoreto MW, de Geus JL, Chibinski AC, Reis A. What is the optimal concentration of carbamide peroxide for at-home bleaching? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2025;61:250-263. doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2025.10.001
  23. Kury M, Prunes BB, Saraceni CHC, Hilgert LA, Fronza BM, Lima AF. Clinical decision-making in tooth bleaching based on current evidence: A narrative review. Dent Mater 2025;41(5):536-552. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2025.03.002

This guide is general education, not a diagnosis. The right choice for your teeth depends on an exam.