Effect of Cosmetic Ceramics on Fracture Toughness of All-Ceramic Restorations

  • Sibel Cetik Professor, Laboratory of Physiology and Pharmaceutics, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8338-3921
  • Marion Vincent Dentist, Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
  • Ramin Atash Professor, Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Zirconium Oxide, Ceramics, Mechanical Stress


Objectives: The use of zirconia as a framework for prosthetic restorations is increasing due to its favorable mechanical properties. Zirconia also has remarkable aesthetic properties when used as a framework and covered with a layer of cosmetic ceramic. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of three types of aesthetic ceramics, namely VITA VM®9, ceraMotion® Zr, and IPS e.max® Ceram.

Materials and Methods: Three groups of aesthetic ceramics (n=10) were subjected to three-point bending tests. The force leading to fracture was recorded for each sample to measure the impact of the ceramic type on the solidity of the framework. The type of fracture has not been studied in this work. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically analyze the results.

Results: The statistical analysis showed significantly different fracture toughness values among the three groups. IPS e.max® showed the lowest fracture toughness (25.42 MPa) compared to VITA VM®9 and ceraMotion® Zr (respectively 40.39 MPa; P<0.001, and 48.78 MPa; P<0.005).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that aesthetic ceramics play an important role in the fracture toughness of all-ceramic restorations.


- Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: Zirconia veneering ce-ramics. Dent Mater. 2006 Sep;22(9):857-63.

- Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of zirconia type on its bond strength with different veneer ceramics. J Prosthodont. 2008 Jul;17(5):401-8.

- Benetti P, Della Bona A, Kelly JR. Evaluation of thermal compatibility between core and veneer dental ceramics using shear bond strength test and contact angle measure-ment. Dent Mater. 2010 Aug;26(8):743-50.

- Taskonak B, Mecholsky JJ Jr, Anusavice KJ. Residual stresses in bilayer dental ceram-ics. Biomaterials. 2005 Jun;26(16):3235-41.

- Coffey JP, Anusavice KJ, DeHoff PH, Lee RB, Hojjatie B. Influence of contraction mismatch and cooling rate on flexural failure of PFM systems. J Dent Res. 1988 Jan;67(1):61-5.

- ISO 9693-1:2012. Dentistry -- Compatibility testing -- Part 1: Metal-ceramic systems. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/54946.html/Accessed December 19, 2017.

- Mackert JR Jr, Ringle RD, Parry EE, Evans AL, Fairhurst CW. The relationship be-tween oxide adherence and porcelain-metal bonding. J Dent Res. 1988 Feb;67(2):474-8.

- Schweitzer DM, Goldstein GR, Ricci JL, Silva NR, Hittelman EL. Comparison of bond strength of a pressed ceramic fused to metal versus feldspathic porcelain fused to metal. J Prosthodont. 2005 Dec;14(4):239-47.

- Fischer J, Grohmann P, Stawarczyk B. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites. Dent Mater J. 2008 May;27(3):448-54.

- Swain MV. Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta Biomater. 2009 Jun;5(5):1668-77.

- Fischer J, Stawarzcyk B, Trottmann A, Hammerle CH. Impact of thermal misfit on shear strength of veneering ceramic/zirconia composites. Dent Mater. 2009 Apr;25(4):419-23.

- Göstemeyer G, Jendras M, Dittmer MP, Bach FW, Stiesch M, Kohorst P. Influence of cooling rate on zirconia/veneer interfacial adhesion. Acta Biomater. 2010 Dec;6(12):4532-8.

- Chantranikul N, Salimee P. Biaxial flexural strength of bilayered zirconia using various veneering ceramics. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Oct;7(5):358-67.

- Marrelli M, Maletta C, Inchingolo F, Alfano M, Tatullo M. Three-Point Bending Tests of Zirconia Core/Veneer Ceramics for Dental Restorations. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:831976.

- Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999 Jan;20(1):1-25.

- Guazzato M, Proos K, Quach L, Swain MV. Strength, reliability and mode of fracture of bilayered porcelain/zirconia (Y-TZP) dental ceramics. Biomaterials. 2004 Sep;25(20):5045-52.

- Rahbar N, Yang Y, Soboyejo W. Mixed mode fracture of dental interfaces. Mater Sci Eng A. 2008 Aug;488(1-2):381-8.

- Diniz AC, Nascimento RM, Souza JC, Henriques BB, Carreiro AF. Fracture and shear bond strength analyses of different dental veneering ceramics to zirconia. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2014 May;38:79-84.

- Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Sailer I, Hämmerle CH. Shear bond strength between veneer-ing ceramics and ceria-stabilized zirconia/alumina. J Prosthet Dent. 2010 May;103(5):267-74.

- Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013 Oct;57(4):236-61.

How to Cite
Cetik S, Vincent M, Atash R. Effect of Cosmetic Ceramics on Fracture Toughness of All-Ceramic Restorations. Front Dent. 15(3):137-142.
Original Article