Veneers

Every veneer arrives with digital design, verified shade, and aligned expectations.

TrazaLab structures every veneer case so the lab receives material, shade with HD photo, prep type, DSD references, and smile design parameters — before touching wax or pressing ceramic.

Start free trial See bridges workflow

96%

10yr survival

0.3-0.5mm

thickness

Shade HD

no compression

DSD

integrated

Veneer Materials

Four materials. One communication standard.

Each material has different fabrication requirements. TrazaLab captures the right fields for each one — so nothing is assumed.

Feldspathic Porcelain

Gold standard esthetics. Hand-layered by master ceramists. Translucency unmatched by any pressed or milled material. Best for individual anterior teeth where maximum esthetics are required.

93-96% survival at 10 years

Beier et al. 2012 — PMID 23101040

E.max (Lithium Disilicate)

Press or CAD/CAM fabrication. Excellent balance of strength (360-400 MPa) and esthetics. Most popular veneer material worldwide. Versatile for single units and multi-unit anterior cases.

97%+ survival at 5 years

Fönzar et al. 2024 — PMID 39523553

Ultra-Translucent Zirconia

Newest option. 900+ MPa flexural strength with significantly improved translucency over traditional zirconia. Ideal for patients who brux or clench — strength without sacrificing esthetics.

Limited long-term data

Kongkiatkamon et al. 2022 — PMID 35545532

Indirect Composite

Lab-fabricated composite veneers. Reversible, repairable, and conservative. Lower cost alternative with good short-term esthetics. Ideal for young patients or budget-conscious cases.

80-85% survival at 10 years

Shahmiri et al. 2023 — PMID 38035903

Platform

This is how a veneer case arrives at your lab

The surgeon fills out the veneer prescription in TrazaLab. You receive the complete case: material, shade with HD photo, prep type, DSD references, and smile design photos — all in one structured order.

No WhatsApp photo dumps. No compressed JPEGs. No guessing what shade the surgeon saw in-person. Everything structured, everything in one place.

trazalab.com/orden/3042

DSD inside the case. Not in another chat.

The surgeon's smile design photos, mockup images, and design parameters travel WITH the case in TrazaLab. No separate emails, no lost attachments.

Smile line curvature documented with photo The surgeon uploads a calibrated smile photo showing the lip line, gingival contour, and smile arc. The lab sees exactly what the patient's smile frame looks like — not a verbal description.

Midline and tooth proportions specified Facial midline position, tooth width-to-length ratios, and symmetry parameters are entered as structured data. The ceramist knows the design intent before opening any software.

Patient expectation photos attached to the case Reference images of the desired outcome — whether from a diagnostic wax-up, digital mockup, or patient inspiration photos — are attached directly to the order. The lab knows what "yes" looks like to the patient.

Comparison

Materials: what the data says

Not marketing claims. Published systematic review data comparing the four main veneer materials.

Material	Thickness	Strength	Esthetics	10yr Survival
Feldspathic Porcelain	0.3–0.5mm	60–70 MPa	Excellent	93–96%
E.max	0.3–0.6mm	360–400 MPa	Very Good	95–97%
Ultra-Translucent Zirconia	0.4–0.6mm	900+ MPa	Good	Limited data
Indirect Composite	0.3–0.5mm	120–160 MPa	Good	80–85%

Shade communication is the #1 source of veneer remakes. TrazaLab requires HD, uncompressed shade photos with tab reference — not WhatsApp images that lose color accuracy in compression.

Sources: Beier et al. 2012, Fönzar et al. 2024, Shahmiri et al. 2023 — PMID 23101040, PMID 39523553, PMID 38035903

Outcomes

Clinical data, not promises

Every number below comes from a peer-reviewed systematic review. Click the source to verify on PubMed.

Porcelain veneer 10yr survival

Feldspathic porcelain laminate veneers, systematic review accounting for clustering.

Beier et al. 2012 →

E.max veneer 5yr survival

Lithium disilicate laminate veneers, systematic review and meta-analysis of ceramic materials.

Fönzar et al. 2024 →

0mm

Minimum prep thickness

Conservative minimal prep — preserving maximum enamel for optimal bond strength and longevity.

Gresnigt et al. 2021 →

Debonding rate

Most common complication — but easily re-bonded. Higher risk when bonding to dentin vs. enamel substrate.

Aldegheishem et al. 2016 →

Prescription Flow

The surgeon's veneer Rx, step by step

Six structured fields. No free-text guessing. The surgeon selects, the lab receives — complete and validated.

Teeth Selection

Multiple anterior teeth selected individually on a tooth chart. Example: #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11 (upper anterior). No ambiguity about which teeth receive veneers.

Material Selection

Feldspathic porcelain, E.max, ultra-translucent zirconia, or indirect composite. Each material triggers different fabrication requirements and minimum thickness validations.

Shade with HD Photo

Shade selected from validated system (VITA Classical or 3D-Master) with mandatory HD photo upload — no compression. The lab sees exactly what the surgeon saw chairside.

Prep Type

Minimal prep (0.3-0.5mm), standard prep, or no-prep. Each option changes the lab's expected thickness, material recommendation, and bond protocol.

DSD Reference Upload

Smile photos, diagnostic mockup images, and digital smile design files uploaded directly to the case. The ceramist sees the patient's smile frame and design intent before starting.

Special Instructions

Midline position, tooth proportions, translucency level, incisal characterization, and any patient-specific requests — structured fields, not free-text notes that get lost.

Quality Control

Validation before fabrication

Veneer-specific checks the lab runs before layering, pressing, or milling. Structured in TrazaLab so nothing is missed.

Photos

Retracted smile photo uploaded

Shade tabs photo present (HD, no compression)

DSD mockup or smile design reference attached

Scan

Anterior teeth scanned clearly without artifacts

Bite registration scan present

Prescription

Material confirmed and validated for case type

Shade selected from validated system

Prep type specified (minimal / standard / no-prep)

Design

Smile line documented with photo

Midline and proportions specified

Evidence

Scientific references

All clinical data on this page comes from peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Beier US, Zetnner J, Hedegaard B, Graf A. The up to 21-year clinical outcome and survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers: accounting for clustering. Dent Mater. 2012;28(11):1188-1195. PMID 23101040

Fönzar G, et al. Survival and Complication Rates of Feldspathic, Leucite-Reinforced, Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2024. PMID 39523553

Shahmiri R, et al. Survival and Complication Rates of Resin Composite Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Oper Dent. 2023. PMID 38035903

Aldegheishem A, et al. 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. PMID 26757327

Gresnigt MMM, et al. A prospective comparative analysis of the survival rates of conventional vs no-prep/minimally invasive veneers over a mean period of 9 years. J Dent. 2022;117:103924. PMID 34927224

Next step

Ready for veneer cases without ambiguity?

Start with a veneer case. See how it feels when shade arrives in HD, DSD references are attached, and every design parameter is structured — before you open CAD or touch wax.