Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns

In vitro analysis of the fracture resistance of CAD–CAM monolithic zirconia molar crowns with different occlusal thickness

“…Although most investigations reported that thicker zirconia copings showed higher fracture strength (Kim et al 2012) and doubling the monolithic zirconia core from 0.6 to 1.5 mm increased the fracture resistance of the restorative system threefold (Sun et al 2014), a recent in vitro analysis demonstrated that an occlusal thickness of 0.5 mm allowed monolithic zirconia crowns to withstand occlusal forces in the molar areas (Nakamura et al 2015).…”

“…Several studies reported higher flexural strength of monolithic to veneered zirconia (Zhang et al 2013;Sun et al 2014). Veneering ceramic represents the weak link of all kinds of prosthetic crowns; moreover, monolithic restorations fabricated by CAD-CAM techniques exhibited less flaws than manual or heat pressing veneered crowns (Sun et al 2014).…”

“…Previous in vitro investigations showed that monolithic zirconia SCs exhibited fracture loads higher than those of layered zirconia restorations (Dhima et al 2013;Sun et al 2014;Lan et al 2015). Recently, an in vitro analysis reported that monolithic zirconia crowns with an occlusal thickness of 0.5 mm showed sufficient fracture resistance to withstand occlusal loads in the molar regions (Nakamura et al 2015).…”

Translucency and flexural strength of monolithic translucent zirconia and porcelain-layered zirconia

“…Yoshinari et al reported that the fracture load of an all-ceramic crown made of InCeram-Alumina, with an occlusal surface thickness of 2.0-2.9 mm and a margin thickness of 1.0 mm, was about 1,000 N, whose flexural strength was about 600 MPa 29,30) . Ting et al reported that a TZP of 1.0 mm thickness showed the same level of fracture load as metal-ceramic crowns 31) . Johansson et al reported that the fracture load of a TZP crown with an occlusal surface thickness of 1.8 mm was 2,700 N or more 27) .…”

Farkli Güdük Materyalleri̇, Saklama Ortami Ve Si̇manin Zi̇rkon Alt Yapilarinin Kirilma Di̇renci̇ Üzeri̇nde Etki̇si̇

“…6 Zirkonyum seramikler biyouyumluluğu, estetik olması ve diğer birçok seramik materyalden yüksek kırılma dayanımı, düĢük plak birikimi gibi özellikleri sayesinde diĢ hekimliği alanında alt yapı materyali olarak sıklıkla tercih edilmektedir. [7][8][9] Son zamanlarda, bilgisayar destekli tasarım/bilgisayar destekli üretim (CAD/CAM) in tanıtımıyla sinterleme ve millemeden sonra zirkonlarda meydana gelen büzülme gibi dezavantajların üstesinden gelinmiĢ ve zirkonyum restorasyonların uyumunu geliĢtirmeye yardımcı olmuĢtur. 10 Bilgisayar destekli tasarım/bilgisayar destekli üretim (CAD/CAM) sistemleri 1980'li yılların baĢlarında diĢ hekimliğinde kullanılmaya baĢlanmıĢtır.…”