Feldspathic veneers and lithium disilicate veneers both have decades of clinical data, and both can look excellent. They differ in how they are made, how thin they can be, how strong they are before and after bonding, and how they are etched. This article compares the two materials point by point, summarises the long-term evidence and gives a decision table, based on how Dr Jan Hajtó uses both ceramics for anterior veneers.
Two different ceramics
Both materials belong to the silicate ceramics, which is why both can be etched with hydrofluoric acid and bonded. Their structure is different.
Feldspathic porcelain is the classic veneering ceramic: ground feldspar glass powder that the technician builds up layer by layer and sinters in a furnace. For veneers, the porcelain is usually layered on refractory dies, as in the long-term cohorts of Layton and Walton (Layton and Walton 2007). Because every layer is applied by hand, shade, translucency and incisal effects can be built in individually, even in very thin veneers.
Lithium disilicate (LS2) is a glass ceramic in which about 70 % lithium disilicate crystals are embedded in a glass matrix. It is pressed (IPS e.max Press) or milled (IPS e.max CAD). The veneer is either made fully anatomical and only stained, or reduced in a cut-back step and finished with layering ceramic at the incisal edge. For the cut-back, the laboratory uses a silicone key from the wax-up to control how much of the framework is reduced.
Strength and minimum thickness
Dr Hajtó's materials overview puts the flexural strength of feldspathic porcelain at roughly 70 to 200 MPa, at the low end of all ceramic systems. For IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar specifies a biaxial flexural strength of at least 360 MPa with a typical average of 470 MPa (IPS e.max Press IFU, Rev. 2, 2026).
| Property | Feldspathic porcelain | Lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) |
|---|---|---|
| Fabrication | hand-layered, sintered, usually on refractory dies | pressed or milled, stained or cut-back and layered |
| Flexural strength | about 70 to 200 MPa | ≥ 360 MPa, typical 470 MPa (biaxial) |
| Minimum thickness, thin veneer | defined by the technician's technique | 0.3 mm circular, 0.4 mm incisal (staining technique only) |
| Minimum thickness, veneer | defined by the technician's technique | 0.6 mm circular, 0.7 mm incisal (staining); cut-back 0.6 mm circular, 0.4 mm incisal |
| HF etching (Dr Hajtó's protocol) | 60 s | 20 s |
| Cementation | adhesive | adhesive (mandatory per IFU) |
Sources: strength of feldspathic porcelain and etching times from Dr Hajtó's course material; LS2 values from the IPS e.max Press instructions for use. The IFU also excludes the cut-back technique for thin veneers and requires the pressed framework to make up at least 50 % of the total thickness in layered restorations.
Thin is not automatically safe for either material. In a laboratory study co-authored by Dr Hajtó, veneers of 0.2 to 0.5 mm and preparations with medium to high dentin portions carried a higher fracture risk than thicker veneers on preparations in enamel or only partly in dentin, although all groups survived three million loading cycles at high rates (Blunck et al. 2020).
Aesthetics: layering versus monolithic
Advocates of feldspathic porcelain argue that pressed ceramics lack the depth of hand-layered porcelain in very thin dimensions, and that feldspathic veneers can be made with little or no preparation (McLaren and LeSage 2011). This is the classic indication: enamel-supported, minimally prepared or non-prep veneers where shape and surface texture change but the colour of the tooth largely stays.
Lithium disilicate offers a range of ingots from high translucency to high opacity (HT, MT, LT, MO, HO, plus multichromatic and opalescent ingots), so the technician can choose how much of the tooth colour shows through. A cut-back with incisal layering brings back some of the individual effects of a layered veneer.
Two points from Dr Hajtó's preparation principles apply to both materials:
- Margins: with an exact fit and the right shade, a thin glass-ceramic margin blends into the tooth (chameleon effect). Opaque ceramic at the cervical margin loses this effect and shows as a line.
- Preparation depth: the deeper the preparation, the more often the underlying dentin looks darker than the enamel it replaces. More reduction can therefore create a masking problem instead of solving one.
Because shade is so hard to predict with thin ceramics, Dr Hajtó tests with ceramic shade samples or test plates in the mouth before the final restorations are made. Shade samples of different ingots on the same tooth show how much the final colour can vary. How the mock-up and wax-up are tested beforehand is covered in diagnostic wax-up and mock-up.
Veneer Preparation course
Preparation, material choice and bonding of veneers, hands-on and taught in English.
View the courseLong-term clinical evidence for feldspathic and lithium disilicate veneers
Feldspathic porcelain
The strongest data for feldspathic veneers come from a single prosthodontist's practice. Layton and Walton followed 304 feldspathic veneers made on refractory dies, with at least 80 % of each preparation in enamel: cumulative survival was 96 % at 5 to 6 years, 93 % at 10 to 11 years and 91 % at 12 to 13 years (Layton and Walton 2007). In the extended cohort of 499 veneers, estimated survival was 96 % at 10 years and 91 % at 20 years for the whole sample, and 96 % at 20 years when one veneer per patient was analysed to account for clustering (Layton and Walton 2012).
In a university cohort of 318 silicate-ceramic anterior veneers, estimated survival was 94.4 % at 5 years, 93.5 % at 10 years and 82.93 % at 20 years. Ceramic fracture was the main reason for failure; bruxism was associated with a 7.7-times higher risk and non-vital teeth also failed significantly more often (Beier et al. 2012). In an earlier evaluation from the same university, six of seven failures occurred in veneers partially bonded to dentin, with an estimated 10-year survival of 91 % (Dumfahrt and Schäffer 2000). Dr Hajtó's own course material documents a feldspathic veneer case at 27 years.
Lithium disilicate
For pressed lithium disilicate veneers placed by two experienced dentists, a 10-year survival of 97.4 % was reported for 364 veneers, with fractures in 0.55 % and debonding in 1.09 % of restorations (Aslan et al. 2019).
Systematic reviews
| Review | Feldspathic | Lithium disilicate / glass ceramic | Key finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morimoto et al. 2016, 13 studies, median 9 years | 87 % survival | 94 % (glass ceramic) | type of ceramic had no influence on failure rate; fracture/chipping 4 % |
| Klein et al. 2025, 29 studies, 10.4 years | 96.13 % survival | 96.81 % (lithium disilicate) | no survival difference; technical complications 41.48 % vs 6.1 % |
The two materials survive equally well. Lithium disilicate showed markedly lower technical, aesthetic and biological complication rates in the most recent meta-analysis, while feldspathic porcelain has the longest follow-up. In the cohorts above, the substrate also mattered: veneers bonded to enamel did better than veneers partly bonded to dentin.
Bonding: same principle, different etching time
Both ceramics are etched with hydrofluoric acid and silanated, then bonded with a resin composite. The etching time differs. In Dr Hajtó's protocol, lithium disilicate is etched for 20 seconds and feldspathic and other glass ceramics for 60 seconds. He prefers to have veneers etched in the laboratory, where the matt etched surface can be checked against the glazed outer surface. Hydrofluoric acid is used extraorally only, with protective glasses and gloves. For ceramics from other manufacturers, follow their instructions for use.
The full sequence from try-in to clean-up is described in the veneer cementation protocol.
Opposing teeth and parafunction
Feldspathic porcelain abrades opposing enamel more than other ceramics. A meta-analysis of clinical studies found the greatest linear and volumetric antagonist wear with feldspathic restorations; lithium disilicate and zirconia caused far less (León Velastegui et al. 2022). With veneers this mainly concerns the incisal edge and the palatal overlap in protrusive and lateral contacts.
Parafunction is a risk for both. Ivoclar lists untreated bruxism as a limitation of use for IPS e.max Press, and in the Innsbruck silicate-ceramic cohort, bruxism increased the failure risk 7.7-fold. In bruxists, check the guidance surfaces carefully and consider a night guard; the options are discussed in occlusal splint therapy.
Decision table
| Situation | Better choice | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Non-prep or minimally invasive veneer, enamel substrate, colour mostly kept | feldspathic porcelain or LS2 thin veneer | both work; feldspathic allows very thin individual layering, LS2 needs at least 0.3 to 0.4 mm |
| Standard veneer with incisal reduction | either | comparable survival; LS2 with fewer complications in recent meta-analysis |
| Shade change or slightly darker substrate | lithium disilicate with suitable ingot translucency | controlled masking, test with shade samples first |
| Large dentin exposure, existing large fillings | lithium disilicate, enamel bonding wherever possible | dentin bonding and thin ceramic increase fracture risk |
| Bruxism, edge-to-edge function | lithium disilicate plus night guard | higher strength, less antagonist wear; bruxism raises risk for both |
| No experienced ceramist for refractory technique | lithium disilicate | predictable pressed or milled workflow |
The preparation design for each situation, from non-prep to standard veneers, is described step by step in veneer prep step by step. For a comparison of lithium disilicate with zirconia, including crowns and onlays, see e.max vs zirconia.
Summary
Feldspathic veneers remain the most individual option for thin, enamel-bonded veneers and have the longest clinical follow-up, with survival above 90 % at 20 years in a single-operator cohort. Lithium disilicate is considerably stronger, comes in defined minimum thicknesses and translucencies, and showed the lowest complication rates in the most recent meta-analysis. Survival is comparable; enamel bonding, adequate thickness and control of parafunction matter more than the choice between the two. Material-appropriate preparation, provisional veneers and adhesive cementation are taught hands-on in Dr Hajtó's Veneer Preparation course in Gauting near Munich.
Frequently asked questions
Are feldspathic veneers better than e.max veneers?
Neither is better in general. In a 2025 meta-analysis, both reached about 96 % survival at 10.4 years, but lithium disilicate (e.max) had far fewer technical complications. Feldspathic porcelain can be layered very thin and individually, which suits minimally invasive veneers on enamel. Lithium disilicate is stronger and more standardised. Substrate, thickness and occlusion matter more than the material itself.
How long do feldspathic veneers last?
In a single-operator cohort of 499 feldspathic veneers bonded to prepared enamel, estimated survival was 96 % at 10 years and 91 % at 20 years. A university cohort of 318 silicate-ceramic veneers reported 93.5 % at 10 years and 82.93 % at 20 years, with higher risk in bruxists and non-vital teeth. Enamel bonding was the common factor in the best results.
How thin can lithium disilicate veneers be?
For IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar's minimum is 0.3 mm circular and 0.4 mm incisal for thin veneers, which must be made in the staining technique. Standard veneers need 0.6 mm circular and 0.7 mm incisal. Laboratory data show a higher fracture risk for veneers of 0.2 to 0.5 mm and for preparations with medium to high dentin portions.
How long should feldspathic veneers be etched?
In Dr Hajtó's protocol, feldspathic and other glass ceramics are etched with hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds and lithium disilicate for 20 seconds, followed by silane. Etching is done extraorally, ideally in the laboratory, with eye protection and gloves. For a specific porcelain, follow its manufacturer's instructions for use.
Do feldspathic veneers wear the opposing teeth?
More than other ceramics. A meta-analysis of clinical studies found the greatest antagonist enamel wear with feldspathic restorations, whereas lithium disilicate and zirconia caused much less. Wear is one reason to prefer lithium disilicate where veneers carry incisal guidance.
