Lumineers vs. Traditional Veneers

Q: A friend told me that there is a veneer that does not require any drilling of the teeth. I have never heard of this. What do you think about this?

A: When something is just too good to be true, approach with caution: Examples: Spanx vs dieting and exercise as a way to look slimmer and Listerine and its statement that it can: “prevent and cure colds and sore throats; rinsing with it is as effective as flossing in fighting tooth and gum decay.” Both completely false.

There was a type of veneer promoted a good ten years ago called Lumineers. They had a very misleading full page ad in many magazines that read: “No drills, no shots, no pain.” (Or something like that.) One lab in California was making them.

They were basically contact-lens-thin sheets of porcelain made from one impression of the teeth. I took the course years ago and tried about five cases. I had to re-do all the cases with traditional “prep-veneers”. Lumineers basically, in medical terms, suck. Why:

1. If you don’t remove .8mm, a thumbnail thickness of enamel off the face of the tooth and just slap on a porcelain contact lens, you are left with a bulky tooth like a Chicklet.
2. You will have a ledge of porcelain at the gum line which will trap food and plaque and cause chronic inflammation and gum disease.
3. The material is so thin it does not mask out the yellows and grays of the teeth.
4. They break easy; even the company that makes them, Denmat, only guaranteed the work for 10 years. I have traditional veneer cases still in the mouth from 30 years ago. My own veneers are on my uppers are 22 years old.
5. Many cases actually did need some enamel drilling for better results.
6. Very few people were good candidates. Mostly 20 year olds with fairly white teeth and spaces between their front ten teeth.
7. It was very difficult to add length in the porcelain which is needed to show more teeth in the smile.

Make sure you ask for Empress Veneers.