Fracture strength of Zirconia and alumina ceramic crowns supported by implants

Tonin Traini, Robert Sorrentino, Enric Gherlone, Federic Perfetti, Patrizi Bollero, Ferdinand Zarone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Due to the brittleness and limited tensile strength of the veneering glass-ceramic materials, the methods that combine strong core material (as zirconia or alumina) are still under debate. The present study aims to evaluate the fracture strength and the mechanism of failure through fractographic analysis of single all-ceramic crowns supported by implants. Forty premolar cores were fabricated with CAD/ CAM technology using alumina (n = 20) and zirconia (n = 20). The specimens were veneered with glass-ceramic, cemented on titanium abutments, and subjected to loading test until fracture. SEM fractographic analysis was also performed. The fracture load was 1165 (6509) N for alumina and 1638 (6662) N for zirconia with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P =0.026). Fractographic analysis of alumina-glass-ceramic crowns, showed the presence of catastrophic cracks through the entire thickness of the alumina core; for the zirconia-glass-ceramic crowns, the cracks involved mainly the thickness of the ceramic veneering layer. The sandblast procedure of the zirconia core influenced crack path deflection. Few samples (n = 3) showed limited microcracks of the zirconia core. Zirconia showed a significantly higher fracture strength value in implant-supported restorations, indicating the role played by the high resistant cores for premolar crowns.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)352-359
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Oral Implantology
Volume41
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1 2015

Keywords

  • Alumina
  • Fracture
  • Implant-Supported Prostheses
  • Strength
  • Zirconia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Fracture strength of Zirconia and alumina ceramic crowns supported by implants'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this