Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2015 The Saint's International Dental Journal | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 91
All‑ceramic materials in dentistry
Samarjit Singh Teja, Prerna Hoogan Teja1
Abstract:
In dentistry, ceramics are often referred to as nonmetallic, inorganic structures primarily containing compounds
of oxygen with one or more metallic or semimetallic elements. They are composed of sodium, potassium,
calcium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, phosphorus, zirconium, and titanium. Structurally, dental ceramics
contain a crystal phase and a glass phase based on the silica structure, characterized by silica tetrahedra,
containing central Si4+ ion with four O− ions. Biocompatibility, esthetics, durability, and easier customization
properties have led to the increased usage of ceramics. The specialty of ceramic teeth is its ability to mimic the
natural tooth in color and translucency along with its strength. Ceramics have excellent intraoral stability and
wear resistance adding to their durability. Basically, the inorganic composition of teeth and bones are ceramics
which is hydroxyapatite. Over the past few years, the technological evolution of ceramics for dental applications
has been incredible, as new materials and processing techniques are being introduced. The improvement in
strength, as well as toughness, has made it possible to expand the range of indications to long-span xed partial
prostheses, implant abutments, and implants. While porcelain-based materials are still a major component in
dental science, there have been moves to replace metal ceramics systems with all-ceramic systems. Numerous
all-ceramics are being developed which is highly esthetic, biocompatible to tissue, and long-lasting in nature.
Advances in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technologies have led to immense popularity
of high-strength ceramic materials. These materials are highly esthetic, biocompatible to tissue, and long-lasting
in nature. In this review, we will discuss all-ceramic materials which are used in dentistry.
Key words: All-ceramic, alumina, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing, silicate, zirconia
Recent trends show a shift from
metal-ceramics to metal-free restorations
in the dental eld. Several types of all-ceramic
materials have been developed to meet the
increased demands of patients and dentists,
which are highly esthetic, biocompatible, and
long-lasting.[1] Silicate and glass ceramics are
used as a veneer for metal or all-ceramic cores.
High-strength ceramics such as aluminum and
zirconium oxide were developed as a core
material for crowns and xed partial dentures
(FPDs) to extend its range to high load bearing
areas.[2] Due to advances in computer-aided
design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing
(CAM) technologies, high-strength ceramic
materials have gained immense popularity.
Zirconia, especially yttria-containing tetragonal
zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP), offering
increasingly greater performance from a
mechanical standpoint, has expanded its range
from single crowns and short-span FPDs to
multiunit and full-arch zirconia frameworks as
well as implant abutments and complex implant
superstructures to support xed and removable
prostheses.[3,4] This overview presents the
current knowledge of all-ceramic materials, their
composition and processing mechanisms, and
possible future trends.
heat‑pressed CeraMiCs
In the early 1990s, the lost wax press technique
was used as an innovative processing method
for producing all-ceramic restorations. The
dental technicians are usually familiar with
this technique, which is commonly used to
cast dental alloys. In addition, the equipment
needed to heat-press dental ceramics is relatively
inexpensive. The rst generation of heat-pressed
dental ceramics contains leucite as a reinforcing
crystalline phase, whereas the second generation
is lithium-disilicate based.
Leucite glass ceramics
The first generation of heat-pressed dental
ceramics contain leucite as a reinforcing
crystalline in a concentration of 35–45 vol%.[5]
Address for
correspondence:
Dr. Prerna Hoogan Teja,
HNO 771/A, Joginder
Vihar, Phase II,
Mohali - 160 055,
Punjab, India.
E-mail: den_capricorn@
yahoo.co.in
Review Article
Department of
Prosthodontics,
Swami Devi Dyal
Hospital and Dental
College, Panchkula,
Haryana, 1Department
of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Bhojia Dental College
and Hospital, Bhud,
Baddi, Himachal
Pradesh, India This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the
work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new
creations are licensed under the identical terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
How to cite this article: Teja SS, Teja PH. All-ceramic
materials in dentistry. Saint Int Dent J 2015;1:91-5.
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.sidj.org
DOI:
10.4103/2454-3160.177930
[Downloaded free from http://www.sidj.org on Thursday, July 8, 2021, IP: 103.129.117.154]
92 The Saint’s International Dental Journal ‑ Vol 1, Issue 2, July‑December 2015
Teja and Teja: All- ceramic materials in dentistry
The molding procedure is conducted at 1080°C in a special,
automatically controlled furnace. The leucite crystals are
formed through a controlled surface crystallization process in
the SiO2-Al2O3-K2O glass system. Because of the difference
in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between
leucite crystals and glassy matrix, tangential compressive
stresses develop around the crystals on cooling. These
stresses lead to crack deection and improved mechanical
performance.[6] These materials exhibit a exural strength of
120–180 MPa and a CTE of 15–18.5 × 10−6/K m/m.[7] Examples
of leucite-reinforced glass ceramics are VITA VMK 68 (VITA
Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany), Finesse All-Ceramic
(Dentsply, York, PA, USA), Optec OPC (Jeneric, Wallingford,
CT, USA), and IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
Principality of Liechtenstein). This material is suitable for
fabrication of inlays, onlays, veneers, and crowns. Favorable
clinical long-term data with high survival rates has been
described for IPS Empress inlays, onlays (90% after 8 years),[8]
veneers (94.4% after 12 years),[9] and crowns (95.2% after
11 years)[10] in the dental literature. Leucite glass ceramics
can also be machined with various CAD/CAM systems.
Multicolored blocks have been recently developed to reproduce
color transitions and shading as well as different levels of
translucency to reproduce natural teeth.[11] But with the
introduction of lithium disilicate glass ceramics, which have
signicantly improved mechanical and esthetic properties, the
use of leucite-reinforced glass ceramics has declined.
Lithium disilicate glass ceramics
The second generation heat-pressed ceramics contain about
65 vol% lithium disilicate as the main crystalline phase.[6] A
signicantly higher strength of 350 MPa was achieved with a
glass ceramic of the SiO2-Li2O-K2O-ZnO-P2O5-Al2O3-La2O3
system by precipitating lithium disilicate (Li2Si2O5) crystals.
High-temperature X-ray diffraction studies revealed that both
lithium metasilicate (Li2SiO3) and cristobalite form during the
crystallization process before the growth of lithium disilicate
(Li2Si2O5) crystals.[12] The nal microstructure consists of,
5 µm in length and 0.8 µm in diameter, highly interlocked
lithium disilicate crystals. Tangential compressive stresses
develop around the crystals due to thermal expansion mismatch
between lithium disilicate crystals and glassy matrix, potentially
responsible for crack deflection and strength increase.
Multiple crack deections develop due to crystal alignment
after heat pressing of lithium disilicate glass ceramic. The
lithium disilicate ceramic was introduced as IPS Empress 2
(Ivoclar Vivadent) in 1998 and is moldable as leucite glass
ceramics but at a lower temperature of 920°C. The CTE is
10.5 × 10−6/K m/m.[13] High survival rates were observed for
anterior and posterior IPS Empress 2 crowns (95.5% after
10 years).[14] IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent) is the newly
developed pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramic with
improved physical properties (exural strength, 440 MPa)
and translucency through a different ring process in the
SiO2-Li2O-K2O-ZnO-P2O5-Al2O3-ZrO2 system. This can be
used in a monolithic application for inlays, onlays, and posterior
crowns or as a core material for crowns and three-unit FPDs in
the anterior region. Apatite glass ceramics are recommended
for veneering. Clinical data exhibited high survival rates for
IPS e.max Press onlays (100% after 3 years),[15] crowns (96.6%
after 3 years),[16] monolithic inlay-retained FPDs (100% after
4 years),[17] and full crown retained FPDs (93% after 8 years).[18]
Recently, IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) has been designed
for CAD/CAM processing technology. The milled lithium
disilicate block is exposed to a 2-stage crystallization process.
Approximately, 40 vol% lithium metasilicate crystals are
precipitated during the rst stage with their crystal size ranging
from 0.2 to 1.0 µm. At this precrystallized state, the CAD/CAM
block exhibits a exural strength of 130–150 MPa, which in turn
allows simplied machining and intraoral occlusal adjustment.
The nal crystallization occurs after milling of the restoration at
850°C in vacuum. The lithium disilicate crystallization occurs
after the meta-silicate crystal phase is dissolved completely. The
above process also converts the blue shade of the precrystallized
block to the selected tooth shade which in turn results in a glass
ceramic with a ne grain size of approximately 1.5 µm and
a 70% crystal volume incorporated in a glass matrix.[11] The
exural strength of CAD/CAM – processed lithium disilicate
glass ceramic is 360 MPa. Because of its favorable translucency
and shade assortment, the material can be used for fully
anatomic (monolithic) restorations with subsequent staining
characterization or as a core material with a subsequent coating
with veneering ceramics. Its use is recommended for anterior or
posterior crowns, implant crowns, inlays, onlays, and veneers.
Preliminary clinical results on single crowns revealed high
survival rates (100% after 2 years).[19]
dry‑pressed and sintered CeraMiCs
Densely sintered alumina-based ceramics produced by dry
pressing, followed by sintering have been available since
the early 1990s. The technique involves computer-aided
production of an enlarged die in order to compensate for
sintering shrinkage (12–20%). Dry pressing and sintering of
a high purity alumina-based core ceramic are then performed
done at high-temperature (1550°C). This results in a highly
crystalline ceramic with a mean grain size of 4 µm and
exural strength of 601 73 MPa.[20] The high-strength core is
then veneered with translucent porcelain to obtain adequate
esthetics. Clinical results demonstrate an excellent in vivo
performance at 15 years.[21-23]
slip‑Cast CeraMiCs
In-Ceram Alumina (VITA Zahnfabrik) was the rst all-ceramic
system available for the single-unit restorations and three-unit
anterior bridges with a high-strength ceramic core fabricated
with a slip-casting technique. A slurry of densely packed
(70–80% wt) Al2O3 is applied and sintered to a refractory die
at 1120°C for 10 h which produces a porous skeleton alumina
particles. This is inltrated with lanthanum glass in a second
[Downloaded free from http://www.sidj.org on Thursday, July 8, 2021, IP: 103.129.117.154]
The Saint’s International Dental Journal ‑ Vol 1, Issue 2, July‑December 2015 93
Teja and Teja: All- ceramic materials in dentistry
ring at 1100°C for 4 h to eliminate porosity and to increase
strength. The core is veneered with a feldspathic porcelain.[24]
In-Ceram Zirconia (VITA Zahnfabrik) is a modied form of
original In-Ceram Alumina systems, with the addition of 35%
partially stabilized zirconia oxide to the slip composition to
strengthen the ceramic. Traditional slip casting technique can
be used and the material can be copy-milled from prefabricated,
partially sintered blanks and then veneered with feldspathic
porcelain. As the core is opaque and lacks translucency, the use
of this material for the anterior region becomes problematic.[25]
ZirConia CeraMiCs
In the early 1990s, zirconia was introduced to dentistry[26] and
in recent years, a large number of publications have appeared
in the literature. Zirconia is a polymorphic material that occurs
in three temperature-dependant phases which are monoclinic
(room temperature to 1170°C), tetragonal (1170–2370°C),
and cubic (2370°C to melting point).[26] Yttrium-oxide
(Y2O3 3% mol) is added to pure zirconia to stabilize the
tetragonal phase at room temperature, enabling a phenomenon
called transformation toughening to occur. The partially
stabilized crystalline tetragonal zirconia transforms to the more
stable monoclinic phase with an associated 3–5% localized
expansion.[27] This increase in volume counteracts further
crack propagation by compression at the tip of the crack.[28]
High exural strength (900–1200 MPa)[29,30] and high fracture
toughness (9–10 MPa.m1/2) for zirconia have been reported.[29]
The most commonly used zirconia are glass-inltrated zirconia
toughened alumina ceramics (In-Ceram, VITA Zahnfabrik)
and 3 mol% Y-TZP. Y-TZP has been used for root canal posts,
frameworks for posterior teeth, implant-supported crowns,
multiunit FPDs, resin-bonded FPDs, implant abutments, and
dental implants.
Zirconia and computer‑aided design/computer‑aided
manufacturing
An assay of CAD/ CAM systems has evolved since F. Duret
introduced the concept in 1971.[31,32] Most of the available CAD/
CAM systems shape blocks of partially sintered zirconia.[26]
Milling from partially sintered blocks involves machining
enlarged frameworks in a so-called green state. These blocks
are then sintered to their full strength, which is accompanied
by shrinkage of the milled framework by approximately 25%
to the desired dimensions. Examples of these systems are
CERCON (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), LAVA
(3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), Procera (Nobel Biocare,
Gothenburg, Sweden), Ekton (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland),
and Cerec (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). The advantage
of industrialized block fabrication and reproducible and
consistent CAM resulted in increased process reliability, and
cost-effectiveness of CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations.[33]
Survival
One of the major drawbacks of zirconia as compared
with metal-ceramics is low-temperature degradation and
was first described by Kobayashi et al.[34] in 1981. At
relatively low temperatures (150–400°C), slow tetragonal to
monoclinic transformation occurs, initiating at the surface
of polycrystalline zirconia and subsequently progressing
into bulk of the material.[26,35] Transformation of one grain is
accompanied by an increase in volume, which causes stress
on surrounding grains and microcracking. Water penetration
into these cracks then exacerbates the process of surface
degradation, and the transformation progresses. The growth
of transformation zone results in surface microcracking, grain
pullout, and nally surface roughening, which ultimately leads
to strength degradation.
Core/framework fractures
Fractures within the zirconia core ceramic are reported at
7% for single crowns after 2 years at 1–8% for FPDs after
2–5 years. Occlusal overloading caused by bruxism (crown
fracture after 1 month[36]) or trauma (connector fracture in
ve-unit FPD after 38 months[37]) and insufcient framework
thickness of 0.3 mm (crown-abutment fractures in three-unit
FPD[38,39]) were mentioned as main reasons for zirconia core
bulk fractures. Fractographic analyses of clinically failed
zirconia crowns showed that radial fractures propagating
upward from cementation surface site resulted in bulk
fractures.[40] Microscopic examinations of failed zirconia-based
FPDs revealed that core bulk fractures were most commonly
located in the connector area and initiated from the gingival
surface, where tensile stresses were the greatest because of
occlusal loading.[41,42]
Veneering ceramic cohesive fractures
Cohesive fractures within the veneering ceramic (chipping) are
the most frequent reason for failures, irrespective of the applied
zirconia veneer system. Veneer fracture rates are reported at
2–9% for single crowns after 2–3 years[43,44] and at 3–36%
for FPDs after 1–5 years.[45,46] Implant-supported zirconia
restorations revealed even higher rates at 8% for single crowns
after 6 months[47] and 53% for FPDs after 1 year.[48] Impaired
proprioception and rigidity of osseointegrated implants
correlated with higher functional impact forces might further
exacerbate cohesive veneer fractures. Fractographic analyses
of clinically failed veneered zirconia restorations revealed
cohesive veneer failures, with cracks originating from the
occlusal surface and propagating to core-veneer interface,
leaving an intact core.[41]
The veneering ceramic material (exural strength 90–120 MPa)
is weak compared with the high-strength core material
(900–1200 MPa).[29,30] As a result, it is prone to failure at low
loads during the masticatory function. However, attempts
to improve the microstructure and mechanical properties of
veneering ceramics with the development of glass-ceramic
ingots for pressing veneering ceramics onto zirconia
frameworks did not result in an increased reliability of the
veneering ceramic.[49,50] Residual stresses in bilayer crowns and
FPDs are associated with the possibility of thermal gradients
[Downloaded free from http://www.sidj.org on Thursday, July 8, 2021, IP: 103.129.117.154]
94 The Saint’s International Dental Journal ‑ Vol 1, Issue 2, July‑December 2015
Teja and Teja: All- ceramic materials in dentistry
being developed in these structures during cooling. For zirconia
veneer all-ceramic systems, the low thermal conductivity of
the zirconia (approximately 3 Wm/K)[51] results in the highest
temperature difference and therefore, very high residual
stresses. In addition, thick layers of veneering ceramics on
zirconia cores are highly susceptible to generating high tensile
subsurface residual stresses resulting in unstable cracking or
chipping.[52]
Framework design
The lack of uniform support of veneering ceramic because of
improper framework design has been discussed as a possible
reason for chipping fractures. With the introduction of
CAD/CAM technologies in dentistry, excessive veneer layer
thickness (>2.5 mm) was created because of the uniform layer
thickness of the copings for crowns and bar-shaped connectors
for FPDs. Improved customized zirconia coping design derived
from the conventional porcelain fused to metal technique
has been recommended to provide adequate support for the
veneering ceramic.[53] A dual-scan procedure of die and full
contour wax pattern has been merged to fabricate the desired
framework. Preliminary in vitro studies showed that cohesive
fractures within the veneering ceramic could not be avoided
with the improved support, but the size of the fractures was
signicantly decreased[54,55] and failure initiation was shifted
toward higher loads.[56]
Minimizing core failures
Laboratory technicians and clinicians should follow the precise
sequence steps in manufacturing zirconia-based restorations,
with the knowledge that zirconia as a framework material is
potentially damaged by surface modications and improper
laboratory and clinical handling techniques.[57] Grinding or
sandblasting of surfaces with high or mild/low-pressure ranges
is implicated as a factor in inducing the formation of surface
microcracking that could be detrimental to the long-term
performance of the restorations and lead to unexpected
failures.[58] With respect to the highly deleterious effect on
zirconia reliability,[59] postsintering surface modications of
zirconia frameworks at the dental laboratory or under clinical
circumstances should be avoided.
newer ConCepts
Manufacturers are now shifting toward the development of
monolithic all-ceramic materials instead of bilayer all-ceramic
systems to remove the most common failing layer of the system
and to avoid inherent residual thermal stresses. Monolithic
zirconia ceramic restorations are being researched in high-load
bearing areas.[60] Separate core and veneer layers than can be
joined with nonthermal methods with CAD/CAM technology
are evolving at rapid pace. Subtractive CAD/CAM approaches
are being now complemented with additive CAD/CAM
approach.[61]
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conicts of interest.
referenCes
1. Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for dental applications: A review.
Materials 2010;3:351-68.
2. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems
with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent
2007;98:389-404.
3. Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Nilner K. A prospective study of
implant-supported full-arch yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia
polycrystal mandibular xed dental prostheses: Three-year results. Int
J Prosthodont 2010;23:364-9.
4. Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of
zirconia ceramics: Basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent
2007;35:819-26.
5. Denry I, Rosenstiel SF. Phase transformation in feldspathic dental
porcelains. In: Fischman G, editor. Bioceramics: Materials and
Applications. Westervill, OH: The American Ceramic Society; 1995.
6. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture
toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials.
Part I. Pressable and alumina glass-inltrated ceramics. Dent Mater
2004;20:441-8.
7. Dong JK, Luthy H, Wohlwend A, Schärer P. Heat-pressed ceramics:
Technology and strength. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:9-16.
8. Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes
Dent 2008;10:307-14.
9. Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6- to
12-year clinical evaluation – A retrospective study. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2005;25:9-17.
10. Fradeani M, Redemagni M. An 11-year clinical evaluation of
leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns: A retrospective study.
Quintessence Int 2002;33:503-10.
11. Höland W, Schweiger M, Watzke R, Peschke A, Kappert H. Ceramics
as biomaterials for dental restoration. Expert Rev Med Devices
2008;5:729-45.
12. Holand W, Apel E, vant Hoen C, Rheinberger V. Studies of crystal
phase formation in the early stage crystallization of lithium disilicate
glass-ceramics. J Non Cryst Solids 2006;352:4041-50.
13. Höland W, Schweiger M, Frank M, Rheinberger V. A comparison of the
microstructure and properties of the IPS empress 2 and the IPS empress
glass-ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:297-303.
14. Valenti M, Valenti A. Retrospective survival analysis of 261 lithium disilicate
crowns in a private general practice. Quintessence Int 2009;40:573-9.
15. Guess PC, Strub JR, Steinhart N, Wolkewitz M, Stappert CF. All-ceramic
partial coverage restorations – Midterm results of a 5-year prospective
clinical splitmouth study. J Dent 2009;37:627-37.
16. Etman MK, Woolford MJ. Three-year clinical evaluation of two
ceramic crown systems: A preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent
2010;103:80-90.
17. Wolfart S, Bohlsen F, Wegner SM, Kern M. A preliminary prospective
evaluation of all-ceramic crown-retained and inlay-retained xed partial
dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:497-505.
18. Wolfart S, Eschbach S, Scherrer S, Kern M. Clinical outcome of
three-unit lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic xed dental prostheses: Up
to 8 years results. Dent Mater 2009;25:e63-71.
19. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys D, Neiva G. A clinical evaluation of
chairside lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns: A two-year report. J Am
[Downloaded free from http://www.sidj.org on Thursday, July 8, 2021, IP: 103.129.117.154]
The Saint’s International Dental Journal ‑ Vol 1, Issue 2, July‑December 2015 95
Teja and Teja: All- ceramic materials in dentistry
Dent Assoc 2010;141 Suppl 2:10S-4S.
20. Andersson M, Odén A. A new all-ceramic crown. A dense-sintered,
high-purity alumina coping with porcelain. Acta Odontol Scand
1993;51:59-64.
21. Zeng K, Odén A, Rowcliffe D. Flexure tests on dental ceramics. Int J
Prosthodont 1996;9:434-9.
22. Hegenbarth EA. Porcelain alumina oxide ceramics: A new way to achieve
stability, precision and esthetics in all ceramic restorations. Qunitessence
Dent Technol 1996;19:21-34.
23. Haag P, Andrersson M, von Steyern, Oden VP. A 15 years of clinical
experience with procera alumina. Appl Osseoint Res 2004;4:7-12.
24. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Hillis SL. Clinical assessment of
high-strength all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:396-401.
25. Sundh A, Sjögren G. A comparison of fracture strength of
yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia ceramic crowns with
varying core thickness, shapes and veneer ceramics. J Oral Rehabil
2004;31:682-8.
26. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications.
Dent Mater 2008;24:299-307.
27. Calamia JR, Trushkowsky RD, Wolff MS. Esthetic and cosmetic dentistry
for modern dental practice: Update 2011. Preface. Dent Clin North Am
2011;55:xiii-xiv.
28. Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature
1975;258:703-4.
29. Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, Torre JP, Peille CN. Mechanical properties
and short-term in vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized
zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:45-61.
30. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials
1999;20:1-25.
31. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental
CAD/CAM: Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of
experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56.
32. Rekow ED. Dental CAD/CAM systems: A 20-year success story. J Am
Dent Assoc 2006;137 (Suppl):5S-6S.
33. Tinschert J, Natt G, Hassenpug S, Spiekermann H. Status of current
CAD/CAM technology in dental medicine. Int J Comput Dent
2004;7:25-45.
34. Kobayashi K, Kuwajima H, Masaki T. Phase change and mechanical
properties of ZrO2-Y2O3 solid electrolyte after aging. Solid State Ionics
1981;3-4:461-87.
35. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: An
overview. Dent Mater 2008;24:289-98.
36. Cehreli MC, Kökat AM, Akça K. CAD/CAM zirconia vs. slip-cast
glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia all-ceramic crowns: 2-year
results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci
2009;17:49-55.
37. Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH.
Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior xed
partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.
38. Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Three-year clinical
prospective evaluation of zirconia-based posterior xed dental prostheses
(FDPs). Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:445-51.
39. Roediger M, Gersdorff N, Huels A, Rinke S. Prospective evaluation of
zirconia posterior xed partial dentures: Four-year clinical results. Int
J Prosthodont 2010;23:141-8.
40. Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for dental applications: A review.
Materials 2010;3:351-68.
41. Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ. Bridging the gap between
clinical failure and laboratory fracture strength tests using a fractographic
approach. Dent Mater 2009;25:383-91.
42. Taskonak B, Yan J, Mecholsky JJ Jr., Sertgöz A, Koçak A. Fractographic
analyses of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater
2008;24:1077-82.
43. Ortorp A, Kihl ML, Carlsson GE. A 3-year retrospective and clinical
follow-up study of zirconia single crowns performed in a private practice.
J Dent 2009;37:731-6.
44. Groten M, Huttig F. The performance of zirconium dioxide crowns: A
clinical follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:429-31.
45. Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Ohlmann B,
Gabbert O. Clinical performance of extended zirconia frameworks for
xed dental prostheses: Two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:610-5.
46. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of
zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:223-7.
47. Nothdurft FP, Pospiech PR. Zirconium dioxide implant abutments
for posterior single-tooth replacement: First results. J Periodontol
2009;80:2065-72.
48. Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Sunzel B, Nilner K. All-ceramic two- to
ve-unit implant-supported reconstructions. A randomized, prospective
clinical trial. Swed Dent J 2006;30:45-53.
49. Tsalouchou E, Cattell MJ, Knowles JC, Pittayachawan P, McDonald A.
Fatigue and fracture properties of yttria partially stabilized zirconia
crown systems. Dent Mater 2008;24:308-18.
50. Guess PC, Zhang Y, Thompson VP. Effect of veneering techniques
on damage and reliability of Y-TZP trilayers. Eur J Esthet Dent
2009;4:262-76.
51. Birkby I, Stevens R. Applications of zirconia ceramics. Key Eng Mater
1996;122-124:527-52.
52. Swain MV. Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on
all-ceramic dental crowns and xed partial dentures. Acta Biomater
2009;5:1668-77.
53. Marchack BW, Futatsuki Y, Marchack CB, White SN. Customization
of milled zirconia copings for all-ceramic crowns: A clinical report. J
Prosthet Dent 2008;99:169-73.
54. Lorenzoni FC, Martins LM, Silva NR, Coelho PG, Guess PC,
Bonfante EA, et al. Fatigue life and failure modes of crowns systems
with a modied framework design. J Dent 2010;38:626-34.
55. Rosentritt M, Steiger D, Behr M, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Inuence of
substructure design and spacer settings on the in vitro performance of
molar zirconia crowns. J Dent 2009;37:978-83.
56. Bonfante EA, Rafferty B, Zavanelli RA, Silva NR, Rekow ED,
Thompson VP, et al. Thermal/mechanical simulation and laboratory fatigue
testing of an alternative yttria tetragonal zirconia polycrystal core-veneer
all-ceramic layered crown design. Eur J Oral Sci 2010;118:202-9.
57. Luthardt RG, Holzhüter MS, Rudolph H, Herold V, Walter MH.
CAD/CAM-machining effects on Y-TZP zirconia. Dent Mater
2004;20:655-62.
58. Wang H, Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ. Strength inuencing variables on
CAD/CAM zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater 2008;24:633-8.
59. Guess PC, Zhang Y, Kim JW, Rekow ED, Thompson VP. Damage and
reliability of Y-TZP after cementation surface treatment. J Dent Res
2010;89:592-6.
60. Zhang Y, Chai H, Lawn BR. Graded structures for all-ceramic
restorations. Dent Mater 2009;25:892-8.
61. Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Zavanelli RA, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL,
Coelho PG. Reliability of metalloceramic and zirconia-based ceramic
crowns. J Dent Res 2010;89:1051-6.
[Downloaded free from http://www.sidj.org on Thursday, July 8, 2021, IP: 103.129.117.154]