Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater. 2015; 31:603-623
Kwon SJ, Lawson NC, McLaren EE Comparison of the mechanical properties of translucent zirconia and lithium disilicate. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120:132-137
Raigrodski AJ, Swift EJ Materials for all-ceramic restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006; 18:117-121
Spies BC, Zhang F, Wesemann C Reliability and aging behaviour of three different zirconia grades for monolithic four-unit fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater. 2020; 36:329-339
Choi JW, Kim SY, Bae JH In vitro study of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:244-251
Baladhandayutham B, Lawson NC, Burgess JO. Fracture load of ceramic restorations after fatigue loading. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:266-271
Sorrentino R, Triulzio C, Tricarico MG In vitro analysis of the fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia molar crowns with different occlusal thickness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016; 61:328-333
Johansson C, Kmet G, Rivera J Fracture strength of monolithic all-ceramic crowns made of high translucent yttrium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide compared to porcelain-veneered crowns and lithium disilicate crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014; 72:145-153
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Cowan AJ Five year clinical evaluation of zirconia bridges in UK general dental practices. J Dent. 2013; 41:992-998
Candido LM, Miotto LN, Fais L Mechanical and surface properties of monolithic zirconia. Oper Dent. 2018; 43:119-128
Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19:1-14
Harianawala HH, Kheur MG, Apte SK Comparative analysis of transmittance for different types of commercially available zirconia and lithium disilicate materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6:456-461
Burke FJT, Fleming GJP, Nathanson D, Marqiuis PM. Are adhesive technologies needed to support ceramics? An assessment of the current evidence. J Adhes Dent. 2002; 4:7-22
Ikemura K, Takeshi E, Kadoma Y. A review of the developments of multi-purpose primers and adhesives comprising novel dithioctanoate monomers and phosphonic acid monomers. Dent Mater J. 2012; 31:1-25
Lee HY, Han GJ, Chang J, Son HH. Bonding of the silane containing multi-mode universal adhesive for lithium disilicate ceramics. Restor Dent Endod. 2017; 42:95-104 https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.95
Moro AFV, Ramos AB, Rocha GM, Perez CDR. Effect of prior silane application on the bond strength of a universal adhesive to a lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:666-671
Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: a review. Dent Mater. 2018; 34:13-28
Blatz MB, Alvarez M, Sawyer K, Brindis M. How to bond zirconia: the APC concept. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2016; 37:611-617
Yi YA, Ahn JS, Park YJ The effect of sandblasting and different primers on shear bond strength between yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystal ceramic and a self-adhesive resin cement. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:63-71
Angkasith P, Burgess JO, Bottino MC, Lawson NC. Cleaning methods for zirconia following salivary contamination. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25:375-379
Pissaia J, Correr G, Gonzaga C, Cunha L. Influence of shade, curing mode, and aging on the color stability of resin cements. Braz J Oral Sci. 2015; 14:272-275
De Souza G, Braga RR, Cesar PF, Lopes GC. Correlation between clinical performance and degree of conversion of resin cements: a literature review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23:358-368
Pilo R, Kaitsas V, Zinelis S, Eliades G. Interaction of zirconia primers with yttria-stabilised zirconia surfaces. Dent Mater. 2016; 32:353-360
Da Silva DFF, Lopes R deO, de Souza NC Bond to zirconia ceramic: evaluation of different primers and a universal adhesive. Open Dentistry J. 2018; 12:929-941
Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28:227-235
Jassim ZM, Majeed MA. Comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of monolithic crowns fabricated from different all-ceramic CAD/CAM materials (an in vitro study). Biomed Pharm J. 2018; 11:1689-1697
Skorulska A, Piszko P, Ryback Z Review on polymer, ceramic and composite materials for CAD/CAM indirect restorations in dentistry – application, mechanical characteristics and comparison. Materials. 2021; 14:1592-1595
Claussen N. Fracture toughness of Al2O3 with an unstabilized ZrO2 dispersed phase. J Am Ceram Soc. 1976; 59:49-51
Naglieri V, Palmero P, Montanaro L, Chevalier J. Elaboration of alumina-zirconia composites: role of the zirconia content on the microstructure and mechanical properties. Materials (Basel). 2013; 6:2090-2102 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma6052090
Kern F, Palmero P. Microstructure and mechanical properties of alumina 5 vol% zirconia nanocomposites prepared by powder coating and powder mixing routes. Ceram Int. 2013; 39:673-682
Takano T, Tasaka A, Yoshinari M, Sakurai K. Fracture strength of Ce-TZP/Al2O3 nanocomposite with different surfaces. J Dent Res. 2012; 91:800-804
Tanaka K, Tamura J, Kawanabe K Ce-TZP/Al2O3 nanocomposite as a bearing material in total joint replacement. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 63:262-270
Ban S. Reliability and properties of core materials for all-ceramic dental restorations. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2008; 44:3-21
Zhang Y, Kim JW. Graded structures for damage resistant and aesthetic all ceramic restorations. Dent Mater. 2009; 25:781-790
Ceramics in dentistry: which material is appropriate for the anterior or posterior Dentition? Part 1: materials science Loo Chien Win Peter Sands Stephen J Bonsor FJ Trevor Burke Dental Update 2024 48:8, 707-709.
Authors
Loo ChienWin
BDS (AIMST), MSc Restorative (Birmingham)
MSc Restorative (Birmingham), Quay Dental Penang, Penang Island, Malaysia
BDS(Hons) MSc FHEA FDS RCPS(Glasg) FDFTEd FCGDent GDP
The Dental Practice, 21 Rubislaw Terrace, Aberdeen; Hon Senior Clinical Lecturer, Institute of Dentistry, University of Aberdeen; Online Tutor/Clinical Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK.
The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Focusing principally on the most commonly used materials, lithium disilicate and zirconia, the aim of Part 1 of this article is to compare the mechanical properties and aesthetics of these two materials. For strength, zirconia possesses superior physical properties when compared with lithium disilicate. However, in terms of aesthetics, lithium disilicate holds advantages. With both materials having different microstructures, the same cementation protocols cannot be used. Other contemporary ceramic materials are briefly reviewed. Part 2 reviews the latest clinical research on their clinical performance.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Awareness of which ceramic material performs optimally on anterior and posterior teeth is clinically important.
Article
Ceramics were introduced to dentistry more than a century ago; however, with advancements in research and technology, there is a variety of materials for indirect restorations in contemporary practice. With such a wide choice, clinicians must be knowledgeable about the indications, composition, and the physical and chemical characteristics of the various materials to achieve clinical success. With continuing research and development in the field, it is a challenge for the dental team to keep up with the recent advances, especially in view of the increasing patient demand for optimum aesthetics.
Ceramics can be classified in many ways, but the present authors consider that the classification by Bovera1 to be most appropriate: it is based on the microstructure of the ceramic materials, ie the glass–crystalline ratio (Figure 1).
Lithium disilicate (Li2Si2O5) comprises needle-shaped crystals composed of 30% amorphous silica and 70% crystalline lithium disilicate crystals, with higher flexural strength, but lower translucency, compared to feldspathic ceramic. Crystals embedded within a glass matrix help to deflect cracks and therefore improve the fracture resistance of the ceramic.2
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
