Dental Materials Journal 2011; 30(4): 554–562

Fracture load and failure analysis of zirconia single crowns veneered with
pressed and layered ceramics after chewing simulation
Bogna STAWARCZYK1, Mutlu ÖZCAN1, Malgorzata ROOS2, Albert TROTTMANN1 and Christoph H. F. HÄMMERLE1
1
Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032
Zurich, Switzerland
2
Division of Biostatistics, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
Corresponding author,  Bogna STAWARCZYK;  E-mail:  bogna.stawarczyk@zzm.uzh.ch


This study determined the fracture load of zirconia crowns veneered with four overpressed and four layered ceramics after chewing
simulation. The veneered zirconia crowns were cemented and subjected to chewing cycling. Subsequently, the specimens were loaded
at an angle of 45° in a Universal Testing Machine to determine the fracture load. One-way ANOVA, followed by a post-hoc Scheffé
test, t-test and Weibull statistic were performed. Overpressed crowns showed significantly lower fracture load (543–577 N) compared
to layered ones (805–1067 N). No statistical difference was found between the fracture loads within the overpressed group. Within
the layered groups, LV (1067 N) presented significantly higher results compared to LC (805 N). The mean values of all other groups
were not significantly different. Single zirconia crowns veneered with overpressed ceramics exhibited lower fracture load than those
of the layered ones after chewing simulation.

Keywords: Zirconia, Overpressed ceramic, Layered ceramic, Fracture load, Aging



the failure type was mainly cohesive within the veneering

INTRODUCTION
Zirconia-based reconstructions have the potential to
substitute the metal-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis
(FDP) due to their high biocompatibility1) and similar
mechanical properties2-6) with those of metal-ceramics.
The superior mechanical properties are due to the finer
grain size and the tetragonal-monoclinic transformation
toughening mechanism of the zirconia which leads to
compressive stresses in the material and results in
reduced crack propagation7). However, some studies
reported that the combination of aging and phase
transformation has been detrimental for fatigue
properties of Y-TZP without veneering8,9). Therefore,
Y-TZP frameworks should be veneered using either
layering technique or overpressed technique.
With the layering technique, over dimensional
powder-liquid veneering ceramic is layered on the
framework and sintered in a special ceramic oven to final
dimensions. This procedure takes at least three firing
procedures including dentin, enamel and glaze. With the
overpressed technique, the veneer is modeled out of wax
on the framework, which is then embedded in a special
investment material. After evaporating the wax, the
generated space is pressed with glass ceramic in a special
press oven under standardized conditions according to
the manufacturers’ instructions. After the muffle is
cooled, the pressed FDP is retrieved and carefully
sandblasted with alumina particles.
Many of clinical studies often reported chipping of
the veneering ceramic but less framework fractures10-16).
This indicates that the weak link in the zirconia FDPs is
the veneering ceramic-zirconia interface.
Studies on the bond strength between the zirconia
framework and veneering ceramic have reported that
ceramic17-19). In fact, both overpressed and layered
veneering ceramics demonstrate similar chemical
compositions. Hence, the objectives of this study were to
test the fracture load and failure analysis of zirconia
frameworks for single crowns veneered with overpressed
or layering technique after chewing simulation. The
tested null- hypothesis was whether the overpressed and
layered ceramic present similar fracture load bearing
capacity after chewing simulation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study included four overpressed ceramics: PressX Zr
(PZ), GC Initial IQ LF (PG), VITA PM9 (PV) and IPS
e.max ZirPress (PC) and four layered ceramics: Zirox
(LZ), GC Initial ZR (LG), Vita VM9 (LV) and IPS e.max
Ceram (LC) (Table 1).
Flexural strength of veneering ceramics
The overpressed ceramic specimens (N=60, n=15 per
group) were cut from wax CAD/CAM disc (ZENO TEC
Wax Disc, Wieland Dental, Pforzheim, Germany) with
the dimensions of 3×4×12 mm by a diamond saw (Well
3241 Precision Diamond Wire Saw, Well, Le Locle,
Switzerland) and polished with SIC P500 disc. The
specimens were invested with the recommended
investment materials according to the manufacturers’
instructions. After evaporating the wax in a standard
oven (EWL Type 5636, KaVo, EWL, Leutkirch am
Allgäu, Germany), the ceramic was pressed in a special
press oven (EP 600, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
Liechtenstein) by the corresponding overpressed
ceramic. The investment material was removed after
cooling in a sandblasting unit (CEMAT NT4,

Received Feb 2, 2011: Accepted Apr 25, 2011

doi:10.4012/dmj.2011-028 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2011-028
 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562 555

Table 1 Products used and the composition of the veneering ceramics

Veneering Short
Framework Veneering ceramics (composition) Manufacturers Lot Number
technique name
ZENO Zr Overpressed PressX Zr (SiO2: 55–65%, Al2O3: 17–24%, Wieland PZ 2/07
(Wieland K2O: 7–11%, Na2O: 5–9%, B2O3: 0–2%, Dental, P: 0.03 /
Dental) pigments: 0.1–0.9%) Pforzheim, L: 043702
Investment: PressX ZR Germany P: 1/07 /
Glaze: P: PressX ZR Glaze/ L: Stain Liquid Special L: 2/07
GC Initial IQ LF (SiO2: 63–68%, Al2O3: 14–17%, GC Europe, PG 200710101
K2O: 9–13%, Na2O: 5–7%, TiO2: <1%, CeO2: <1%, Leuven,
ZrO2: <1%, CaO: 0–1%, B2O3: 1–2%, BaO: 0–1%, Belgium P: 200806051A /
LiO2: <1%, MgO: <1%, pigments: 0.3–3) L: 0805151
Investment: GC Multi PressVest P: 200805201 /
Glaze: P: GC Initial IQ/POZr L-N / L: GC Initial L: 0941
Diluting Liquid
VITA PM9 (SiO2: 62–67%, Al2O3: 16–19%, K2O: Vita PV 25870
6–8%, Na2O: 5–8%, B2O3: 1–3%, pigments) Zahnfabrik,
Investment: VITA PM Investment Bad Säckingen, P: 2851198 / L:
Germany 14540
Glaze: Vita SHEDING PASTE Glaze SP15 27010
IPS e.max ZirPress (SiO2: 57–62%, Al2O3: 12–16%, Ivoclar PC L28227
K2O: 2–4%, Na2O: 6–8%, F: 0.5–1%, P2O5: 1–2%, Vivadent,
other oxides: 0–6%, pigments:0.2–0.9%) Schaan, P: LL2004 / L:
Investment: IPS PressVest Liechtensten LL2053
P: L36521 / L:
Glaze: P: IPS e.max Ceram Glaze Powder / L: IPS 32899
e.max Ceram Glaze and Stain Liquid
Layered Zirox (SiO2: 55–75%, Al2O3: 7–23%, K2O: 3–10%, Wieland LZ 1/05
Na2O: 3–13%, TiO2: 0–1%, ZrO2: 0–8%, CaO: 0–1%, Dental,
B2O3: 0–4%, F: 0–1%, LiO2: 0–1%, pigments: 0–4%) Pforzheim,
Carving Liquid Germany 30/06
GC Initial ZR (SiO2: 65–70%, Al2O3: 8–10%, GC Europe, LG 4651
K2O: 5–6%, Na2O: 10–12%, CeO2: <1%, CaO: 4–6%, Leuven,
BaO: 0.5–1.5%, LiO2: <1%, pigments: 0.1–3%) Belgium
Zr/ Modelling Liquid 200506151
VITA VM9 (SiO2: 60–64%, Al2O3: 7–10%, Vita LV 13340
K2O: 7–10%, Na2O: 4–6%, TiO2: <0.5%, Zahnfabrik,
CeO2: <0.5%, ZrO2: 0–1%, CaO: 1–2%, B2O3: 3–5%, Bad Säckingen,
BaO: 1–3%, SnO2: <0.5%, P2O5: <1%, MgO: <1%, Germany
FeO: <0% pigments)
Modelling Liquid 10780
IPS e.max Ceram (SiO2: 60–65%, Al2O3: 8–12%, Ivoclar LC L37100
K2O: 6–8%, Na2O: 6–9%, CaO: <6%, B2O3: 0–4%, Vivadent,
F: <6%, P2O5: <6%, other oxides: 2–8.5%, Schaan,
pigments: 0.1–1.5%) Liechtensten
Build-Up Liquid L32826

Wassermann, Hamburg, Germany) using 50 µm alumina
particles (Renfert, Hilzingen, Germany) at 2 bar
pressure. Then, the overpressed ceramic specimens were
ground to the final dimensions using SIC P220, P500,
P1200.
The layered ceramic specimens (N=60, n=15 per
group) were layered in a separable steel mold. Dentin
ceramic powder was mixed with the respective liquid to
form sticky slurry which was then filled into the mold.
The specimens were placed on a layer of silica powder on
a carrier and firing was performed in a ceramic oven
(Austromat D4, Dekema, Freilassing, Germany)
according to the recommendations of the manufacturers.
After firing, the specimens were ground to the final
dimensions using SiC discs P220, P500 and P1200.
The three-point flexural strength was measured
(N=120) according to ISO 6872: 200820). The dimensions
of the specimens were measured to the next 0.01 mm.
The specimens were placed in the appropriate sample
holder and loaded in the Universal Testing Machine
556 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562

Fig. 1 Zirconia framework design retrieved from the used CAD/CAM

software.

(Zwick/Roell Z010, Zwick, Ulm, Germany) at a cross-head

speed of 1 mm/min until failure and the three-point
flexural strength was calculated.

Fracture load of veneered crowns

The metal abutment21) was scanned (3Shape D 250,
Wieland Dental) and an anatomically supported Y-TZP
framework was constructed (Fig. 1) (ZENO TEC Wieland
Dental), milled (ZENO 4030 M1, Wieland Dental) and
sintered using a predefined firing schedule (ZENO TEC
Fire, Wieland Dental). The frameworks were randomly
divided into eight groups (N=120, n=15 per group)
including four overpressed ceramics and four layered
ceramics.
A master veneered crown was scanned to
manufacture the standardized dimensions (thickness
framework: 0.8–1.1 mm; thickness veneering ceramic:
max. 1.6 mm) of overpressed veneering ceramics (3Shape
D 250, Wieland Dental). (Fig 2). Sixty copings of wax
(ZENO TEC Wax Disc, Wieland Dental) for the
overpressed veneering (N=60, n=15 per group) were
produced using a CAD/CAM system (ZENO 4030 M1).
The zirconia framework and the wax coping were
prepared out of a thin layer of wax (THOWAX, YETI
Dentalprodukte, Engen, Germany). The crowns were Fig. 2 Lateral view of the cross-section of the
invested with the corresponding investment materials of veneered zirconia crown indicating the
the manufacturer. Subsequently, the frameworks were thickness of the core and the veneering
overpressed in a special press oven (EP 600, Ivoclar ceramic.
 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562 557

Table 2 Pressing parameters of the overpressed ceramics tested

Investment Closing Heat Rate Final Fusion Time Pressure
Preheating Temperature (°C) (°C/min) Temperature (°C) (min) (bar)
PressX ZR Long heating 700 60 1,060 20 5
method
GC Initial IQ Quick heating 800 60  940 20 5
method
VITA PM9 Quick heating 700 50 1,000 20 5
method
IPS e.max ZirPress Long heating 700 60  900 15 5
method

Vivadent) by the corresponding overpressed ceramic

using the parameters of the manufacturers (Table 2).
The investment material was removed after cooling in a
sandblasting unit (CEMAT NT4, Wassermann) using 50
µm alumina particles (Renfert) at 2 bar pressure. The
extrusion flashes were removed using a water-cooled
air-turbine without pressure to protect the press ceramic
in order not to create overheating. Finally, glaze paste
was applied on the crowns and fired in the ceramic oven.
To achieve standardized shape and size of the
layered veneers (N=60, n=15 per group), a silicone key
was used during build-up. In a second firing, dentin was
added to compensate for the shrinkage of the sintering
process. Prior to the second firing, the slurry was
condensed into the mold using a vibrator for 2 s at 50 Hz
(Elektro Vibrator Porex, Renfert). After the final firing,
the veneering ceramic was glazed and the restoration
was finished. The all-ceramic crowns were cemented
with glass ionomer cement (KetacCem, 3M ESPE,
Seefeld, Germany) on their corresponding metal
abutment analog according to the manufacturers’
instructions.
The overpressed and layered crowns were cyclic
loaded under 49 N for 1.2 million times at the frequency
of 1.7 Hz. Simultaneously thermal aging was achieved
by changing the surrounding water temperature from
5°C to 50°C every 120 s22). As antagonist material,
polished flat composite form (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar
Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was used (Fig. 3). Load
Fig. 3 Chamber of the cyclic loading device where
was applied on the palatal surface of the crowns analog load is applied at 45 degrees to the long axis
to Voss test methods23) where load was applied at 45 of the abutment.
degrees to the long axis of the abutment.
After chewing simulation, the specimens were
loaded in the Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min;
Zwick/Roell Z010) to measure the fracture load. The load
was induced with a flat jig on the palatal surface of the Switzerland) (×25) and categorized as follows: a) chipping
incisal edge at an angle of 45 degrees to the long axis of of the veneering ceramic or b) fracture of the veneering
the tooth23). To achieve even force distribution, a 0.5 mm ceramic together with total fracture of the framework
tin foil (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) was placed (Fig. 4).
between the incisal edge and the loading jig. The fracture
load was registered as soon as fracture load decreased by Statistical analysis
10% of the maximum load (Fmax). The Statistical Package for the Social Science Version 15
The failure types were observed by two operators (SPSS INC, Chicago, IL, USA) and MINITAB Version
under an optical microscope (M3M, Wild, Heerbrugg, 14 (MINITAB, State College, PA, USA) for Weibull
558 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562

Fig. 4 Failure types observed after fracture test * total fracture ** chipping.

statistics were used (p<0.05).

The flexural strength and fracture load data were
analyzed with two-way and one-way ANOVA, followed
by a post hoc Bonferroni test, and two sample Student’s
t-test based on the assumption of normal data
distribution.
In addition, the Weibull statistics were calculated by
means of the parametric distribution analysis for right
censored data for fracture load. The parameters of the
Weibull distribution were estimated by Maximum
Likelihood and their 95% CI were computed. Bartlett’s
modified likelihood ratio tests for the equality of the
Weibull modulus and the equality of the characteristic
value of fracture load were conducted together with the
appropriate post-hoc test.
Failure types were classified as chipping and total Fig. 5 Boxpolts of fracture load (N) by manufacturer of
fracture, and the relative frequencies were computed veneering ceramic and veneering technique.
together with the corresponding 95% CI24). The fracture
load results were analyzed as censored data according to
the failure types using Weibull statistics.

RESULTS
All overpressed (PZ: 99±14 MPa, PG: 103±10 MPa, PV:
107±7 MPa, PC: 106±9 MPa) and layered (LZ: 104±14
MPa, LG: 102±10 MPa, LV: 109±12 MPa, LC: 100±9
MPa) veneering ceramics presented flexural strength
values in the same range. No statistical differences were
found between the four overpressed and four layered
veneering ceramic and within the corresponding
manufacturers (p>0.05).
The mean fracture load of the four overpressed
zirconia crown groups presented similar values. Within
the four different layered zirconia crown groups, PV
showed a significantly higher mean fracture load Fig. 6 Boxplots of fracture load (N) by manufacturer of
compared to PC. Within one manufacturer, the fracture veneering ceramic and veneering technique with
load of the overpressed zirconia crowns showed censored data chipping and fracture.
 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562 559

Table 3 Mean (SD) and 95% confidence interval of the fracture load (N), p-value of the two sample Student’s t-test with
difference of the mean fracture load and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between layering and
pressing techniques by manufacturers

Wieland Dental GC Europe Vita Zahnfabrik Ivoclar Vivadent

Overpressed technique Mean (SD) 543 (234)a 573 (278)a 577 (287)a 628 (238)a
95% CI (413;673) (419;728) (417;736) (496;761)
t-test between layered and p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
overpressed technique
95% CI (−526;−213) (−531;−194) (−689;−291) (−335;−16)
Layered technique Mean (SD) 912 (181) A,B
936 (157) A,B
1,067 (243) B
804 (185)A
95% CI (874;1,057) (849;1,023) (932;1,202) (702;907)
The letters reflect the results from the one-way ANOVA within the same veneering technique. Different letters
represent a significant post-hoc test between the levels of the manufacturer factor.

Table 4 Failure types with relative frequencies and 95% confidence interval for all tested groups and all failure types

Veneering Failure types with relative frequency (95% CI)

Groups
technique Total fracture Framework intact, chipping
Overpressed PZ n=3 n=12
(n=15) 20.0 (4.3;48.1) % 80.0 (51.9;95.7) %
PG n=4 n=11
(n=15) 26.7 (7.7;55.1) % 73.3 (44.9;92.3) %
PV n=3 n=12
(n=15) 20.0 (4.3;48.1) % 80.0 (51.9;95.7) %
PC n=5 n=10
(n=15) 33.3 (11.8;61.7) % 66.7 (38.4;88,2) %
Layered LZ n=9 n=6
(n=15) 60.0 (32.2;83.7) % 40.0 (16.3;67.8) %
LG n=10 n=5
(n=15) 66.7 (38.4;88.2) % 33.3 (11.8;61.7) %
LV n=10 n=5
(n=15) 66.7 (38.4;88.2) % 33.3 (11.8;61.7) %
LC n=7 n=8
(n=15) 46.7 (21.2;73.4) % 53.3 (26.5;78.8) %

significantly lower results than the layered ones (Table

3, Fig. 5).
Chipping of the veneering ceramic, were
predominantly observed among the overpressed crowns.
The layered crowns showed mainly total fracture (Table
4).
The fracture load analyzed depending on the failure
type, showed that within the overpressed crowns, the
total fracture occurred at a lower fracture load level than
chipping (Fig. 6). The opposite was true for the layered
crowns namely: chipping occurred at a lower fracture
load level.
The Weibull statistics for the fracture load (all
failure types) resulted in significantly lower Weibull
moduli for PZ (overpressed), PV (overpressed) and LZ
(layered) compared to PC (overpressed). The Fig. 7 Weibull statistic with fracture load results of all
characteristic value for the fracture load was significantly failure types.
lower for PZ (overpressed), PV (overpressed), LZ
560 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562

Table 5 Weibull modulus (m), characteristic fracture load (0) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals and their
difference for censored data chipping and total fracture and for complete data
Failure type: chipping Failure type: total fracture All fracture types
Veneering
Groups Weibull Characteristic Weibull Characteristic Weibull Characteristic
technique modulus (m) fracture load (0) modulus (m) fracture load (0) modulus (m) fracture load (0)
and 95% CI and 95% CI (N) and 95% CI and 95% CI (N) and 95% CI and 95% CI (N)
Overpressed PZ 3.4 (2.3;5.0)a   686 (576;819)a   1.0 (0.3;3.0)a 2659 (385;18,336)ab 2.5 (1.7;3.8)a   609 (493;752)a
PG 3.5 (1.7;7.1)a 1235 (946;1613)b   8.1 (5.2;12.3)b 1084 (997;1,178)ab 5.7 (3.8;8.3)ab   984 (895;1,082)ab
PV 5.4 (3.4;8.5)a
  775 (690;870)ab
  0.8 (0.3;2.0)a
3095 (441;21,722) ab
2.3 (1.4;3.5)a
  644 (509;815)a
PC 3.6 (1.6;7.9)a 1311 (949;1,812)ab 11.8 (7.7;18.1)b 1067 (1,010.3;1,127.5)ab 7.3 (4.8;10.9)b   999 (928;1,076)b
Layered LZ 3.0 (1.9;4.7)a   747 (615;909)ab   1.0 (0.3;2.8)a 3000 (419;21,441)ab 2.2 (1.4;3.4)a   654 (514;830)a
LG 3.1 (1.6;6.1)a 1605 (1,155;2,231)b   4.6 (3.1;6.8)ab 1296 (1,129;1,487)b 4.1 (2.9;5.7)ab 1164 (1,018;1,330)b
LV 4.5 (2.9;6.9)a   826 (715;954)ab   1.5 (0.7;3.4)a 1327 (630;2,794)ab 3.0 (2.0;4.4)ab   704 (587;844)a
LC 3.2 (1.7;6.0)a 1025 (814;1,291)ab 14.8 (8.8;24.6)b   993 (942;1,047)a 5.5 (3.6;8.3)ab   874 (793;963)a
Significantly different p=0.652 p<0.001 p<0.001 p=0.013 p<0.001 p<0.001
The letters reflect the results from the Bartlett’s modified likelihood ratio test (for equal shape and for equal scale) within the same
Weibull moduli and characteristic fracture load groups. Different letters represent a significant post-hoc Bonferroni test between the
levels of the test groups factor.

(layered), LV (layered) and LC (layered) than in PC
(overpressed) and LG (layered). The Weibull moduli for
chipping of the overpressed and layered crowns were not
significant (Table 5, Fig. 7). The characteristic fracture
load for chipping resulted in a significantly lower value
for PZ (overpressed) compared to PG (overpressed) and
LG (layered). The Weibull moduli for total fracture
resulted in a significantly higher value for PG
(overpressed), PC (overpressed) and LC (layered)
compared to PZ (overpressed), PV (overpressed) and LV
(layered). The characteristic fracture load for total
fracture resulted in a significantly higher value for LC
(layered) compared to LG (layered) (Table 4, Fig.7).
DISCUSSION
Although the mean flexural strength of veneering
ceramics of both veneering techniques presented similar
values, the mean fracture load of the overpressed
ceramics was significant lower compared to the layered
ones. Therefore, the null-hypothesis of this study is
rejected. In all overpressed groups, predominantly
chipping of the veneering ceramic was observed. In
addition, while considering the fracture load values by
failure type, fractures of the framework were observed at
a lower fracture load than chipping with the overpressed
ceramics. Based on this fact, it can be suggested that
zirconia frameworks are durable under the load until
chipping failure. Under the similar loading magnitude
the layered crowns presented predominantly total
fracture. Thus, the failure type chipping was observed
with lower fracture load values than the fracture of
framework.
The flexural strength values did not significantly
differ between the overpressed and layered veneering
ceramics within the same manufacturer. This could be
attributed to similar chemical compositions of the
ceramics. After ceramic overpressing, while the FDPs in
this system were retrieved followed by sandblasting that
was used for removing the investment material, with the
layered ceramics, sandblasting was not practiced. The
sandblasting process could be held responsible for the
damage on the zirconia surface that negatively influences
the mechanical properties of zirconia25). It has been
reported that zirconia is subjected to a different type of
surface damage as a result of milling and grinding
procedures, which introduces surface flaws. Such surface
flaws act as stress concentration sites and create crack
initiation and propagation, even though they are
microscopic in nature26,27).
Between the overpressed ceramics also no significant
difference was found in flexural strength and fracture
load. Although the overpressing parameters were not
identical with the tested materials, sandblasting has
possibly created internal stresses in the FDP, which
eventually weakened the ceramic and yielded to chipping.
In fact, final temperature of 1,000°C or above of final
temperature, regeneration affect could have been
expected from the tested overpressed ceramic types,
namely PressX ZR and Vita PM9. However, due to
insignificant differences in mean fracture load values,
this statement could not be made. In a previous study,
regeneration firing of layering ceramics has shown a
significant decrease of shear bond strength between
zirconia and veneering ceramic18). It could be anticipated
that anatomical geometry of the FDP might have affected
the results compared to standard geometrical
specimens18).
One clinical study reported significantly less
fractures and chippings with overpressed FDPs compared
 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562
to layered ones28). One other study observed no chipping
with the overpressed technique for veneering ceramic29).
However, clinical failures of zirconia restorations often
show chipping of the veneering ceramic independent of
the veneering ceramic used10-15). The crucial point is the
internal tensile stresses in the veneering ceramic.
Tensile stresses could occur through several mechanisms
and it is possible that during the pre-treatment of
zirconia frameworks phase transformation takes place,
resulting in additional monoclinical phase. The coefficient
of thermal expansion of monoclinic zirconia (7.5×10−6/
K)30) is significantly lower than that of tetragonal zirconia
(10.8×10−6/K)5). Moreover, the Voss test induces tensile
forces from the outer surface of the crowns until the
crown fails, with which fracture load is determined. This
fracture load represents the internal tensile stresses
within the crown after firing, as well as the bond and
flexural strength of the framework together with the
veneering ceramic. In fact, the flexural strength of the
zirconia veneering ceramic is similar to metal-ceramics31).
A recent study reported that the bond strength between
the veneering ceramic and zirconia showed the same
quality for both veneering techniques32). In addition, the
zirconia framework flexural strength could be considered
sufficient for intraoral restorations2,5,6).
Other in-vitro studies demonstrated no significant
differences in the initial fracture resistance between
layered and overpressed reconstructions33,34). The impact
of the veneering technique involving the aging process
was tested in an in-vitro study and no differences
between the veneering techniques were observed35).
However, in that study only veneered zirconia plates
were used instead of anatomical design. Therefore,
information derived from geometrical specimens need to
be verified in anatomical reconstruction simulating the
clinical situation.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, the following
could be concluded:
1. Flexural strength of overpressed and layered
veneering ceramic showed similar results.
2. Overpressed veneering ceramics for zirconia
single crown frameworks exhibited lower fracture
load compared with layered ones.
3. While all layered test groups showed
predominantly framework fractures together with
fracture of the veneering ceramic, overpressed
test groups showed mainly chipping of the
veneering ceramic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Wieland Dental, GC
Europe, Vita Zahnfabrik and Ivoclar Vivadent for their
support with the materials. We are grateful to Martina
A. Schmid for the support in writing the manuscript.
561
REFERENCES
1) Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial.
Biomaterials 1999; 20: 1-25.
2) Filser F, Kocher P, Weibel F, Lüthy H, Schärer P, Gauckler
LJ. Reliability and strength of all-ceramic dental restaurations
fabricated by direct ceramic machining (DCM). Int J Comp
Dent 2001; 4: 89-106.
3) Sturzenegger B, Fehér A, Lüthy H, Schärer P, Gauckler LJ.
Reliability and strength of all-ceramic dental restorations
fabricated by direct ceramic machining (DCM). Int J Comp
Dent 2001; 4: 89-106.
4) Lüthy H, Filser F, Loeffel O, Schumacher M, Gauckler LJ,
Hämmerle CHF. Strength and reliability of four unit
all-ceramic posterior bridges. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 930-937.
5) Fischer J, Stawarczyk B. Compatibility of machined Ce-TZP/
Al2O3 nanocomposite and a veneering ceramic. Dent Mater
2007; 23: 1500-1505.
6) Quinn JB, Sundar V, Parry EE, Quinn GD. Comparison of
edge chipping resistance of PFM and veneered zirconia
specimens. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 13-20.
7) Christel PS. Zirconia: The second generation of ceramics for
total hip replacement. Bull Hosp J Dis Orthop Inst 1989; 49:
170-177.
8) Chevalier J, Gremillard L, Virkar AV, Clarke DR. The
tetragonal-monoclinic transformation in zirconia : lessons
learned and future trends. J Am Ceram Soc 2009; 92:
1901-1920.
9) Kirsten A, Begand S, Oberbach T, Telle R, Fischer H.
Subcritical crack growth behavior of dispersion oxide
ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010; 95:
202-206.
10) Vult von Steyern PV, Carlson P, Nilner K. All-ceramic fixed
partial dentures designed according to the DC-Zircon
technique. A 2-year clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32:
180-187.
11) Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL,
Mohamed SE, Billiot S, Mercante DE. The efficacy of posterior
three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental
prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent
2006; 96(4): 237-244.
12) Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Lüthy H, Gauckler LJ, Schärer P,
Hämmerle CHF. Prospective clinical study of zirconia
posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up.
Quintessence Int 2006; 37: 41-49.
13) Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle
CHF. Five-Year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for
posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20:
383-388.
14) Edelhoff D, Beuer F, Florian W, Johnen C. HIP zirconia fixed
partial dentures-clinical results after 3 years of clinical
service. Quintessence Int 2008; 39: 459-471.
15) Schmitt J, Holst S, Wichmann M, Reich S, Gollner M, Hamel
J. Zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: a prospective
clinical 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22: 597-603.
16) Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Swain M. Clinical trials in zirconia: a
systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 641-652.
17) Aboushelib MN, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ.
Microtensile bond strength of different components of core
veneered all-ceramic restaurations. Dent Mater 2005; 21:
984-991.
18) Fischer J, Grohmann P, Stawarczyk B. Effect of zirconia
surface treatments on the bond strength to veneering
ceramics. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 448-454.
19) Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Sailer I, Hämmerle CH. Shear bond
strength between veneering ceramic and ceria-stabilized
zirconia/alumina. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 267-274.
20) ISO DIN 6872: 2008 Dentistry-ceramic materials. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standard; 2008.
562 Dent Mater J 2011; 30(4): 554–562
21) Kellerhoff RK, Fischer J. In vitro fracture strength and
thermal shock resistance of metal-ceramic crowns with cast
and machined AuTi frameworks. J Prosthetic Dent 2007; 97:
209-215.
22) Krejci I, Reich T, Lutz F, Albertoni M. In-Vitro-Testverfahren
zur Evaluation Dentaler Restaurationssysteme. 1.
Computergesteuerter Kausimulator. Schweiz Monatsschr
Zahnmed 1990; 100: 953-960.
23) Voss R. Stability of metal-ceramic crowns (die Festigkeit
metallkeramischer Kronen). Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1969; 24:
726-731.
24) Wissenschaftliche Tabellen Geigy, Teilband Statistik, 8.
Auflage, Basel, 1980 CIBA-GEIGY Limited, Basel,
Switzerland.
25) Karakoca S, Yilmaz H. Influence of surface treatment on
surface roughness, phase transformation, and biaxial flexural
strength of Y-TZP ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl
Biomater 2009; 91: 930-937.
26) Luthardt RG, Holzhüter M, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Schnapp
JD, Kuhlisch E, Walter M. Reliability and properties of
ground Y-TZP-Zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2002; 81:
487-491.
27) Luthardt RG, Holzhuter M, Rudolph H, Herold V, Walter
MH. CAD/CAM-machining effect on Y-TZP zirconia. Dent
Mater 2004; 20: 655-662.
28) Christensen RP, Eriksson KA, Ploeger BJ. Clinical
performance of PFM, zirconia and alumina three-unit
posterior protheses. IADR Toronto 2008. Abstract No 105962.
29) Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W. Three-year clinical prospective
evaluation of zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses
(FOPs). Clin Oral Invest, 2009; 13: 445-451.
30) Patil RN, Subbarao EC. Axial thermal Expansion of ZrO2 and
HfO2 in the range room temperature to 1400°C. J Appl Cryst
1969; 2: 281-288.
31) Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Hämmerle CH. Flexural strength of
veneering ceramics for zirconia. J Dent 2008; 36: 316-321.
32) Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond
strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic
restorations. Part 3: Double veneer technique. J Prosthodont
2008; 17: 9-13.
33) Beuer F, Schweiger J, Eichberger M, Kappert HF, Gernet W,
Edelhoff D. High-strength CAD/CAM-fabrication mode for
all-ceramic restaurations. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 121-128.
34) Guess PC, Zhang Y, Thompson, VP. Effect of veneering
techniques on damage and reliability of Y-TZP trilayers. Eur
J Esthet Dent 2009; 4: 262-276.
35) Kolbeck C, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Strength of
zirconia dentures veneered in press versus layering technique.
IADR Toronto 2008. Abstract No 104599.