AIM: To determine the most effective cementation method and resin cement material for long term success of esthetical restorations TASKS: 1. Compare Panavia Veneer LC (Kuraray Noritake) cement with universal Panavia V5 (Kuraray Noritake) cement for porcelain veneer cementation in terms of marginal defects and discolouration; 2. Evaluating direct vs indirect restorations after 1-year and 3-year follow up periods in terms of patient satisfaction (evaluated by OES scale).

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants: Patients attending the Department of Prosthodontics at the RSU Institute of Stomatology, and willing to improve the aesthetics of front teeth with porcelain veneers. Approx. 30 patients. Inclusion criteria: healthy periodontium, needs 4 veneers, stable occlusion. Exclusion criteria: heavy bruxism, poor oral hygiene, active periodontal inflammation.

Veneer preparations will be done for maxillary anterior teeth approximately 0.5mm deep, involving the whole facial surface and keeping enamel around all borders. For digital impressions of preparations intra-oral scans with intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 5 WIRELESS, Denmark) will be taken. Veneers will be fabricated according to the CAD/CAM technique. This will be a prospective paired design study, i.e., two different composite cements (Panavia V5 and Panavia Veneer LC) will be used for each patient, cementing two veneers with each of the cements.

Data on following variables will be collected:

1. Restoration condition (defects related to restoration - ceramic fractures, cracks, loss of retention, discolouration);
2. Condition of the abutment teeth (secondary caries, endodontic complications);
3. Periodontal condition (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gum recessions);
4. Patient satisfaction questionnaire (OES).

Inclusion Criteria:

• healthy periodontium, needs at least 4 veneers, enamel around all veneer borders

Exclusion Criteria:

• heavy bruxism, poor oral hygiene, active periodontal disease