Although further studies are necessary to corroborate these findings, both zirconia systems could be recommended for restoring posterior teeth on the basis of the fracture load values recorded in this experiment (>1000 N). The veneering procedure did not affect the overall load to fracture in any group.

Purpose To evaluate the influence of static (not preloaded) and thermomechanical loading on the load to fracture of metal‐ceramic, monolithic and veneered zirconia computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) posterior fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Materials and Methods One hundred standardized specimens with 2 abutments screwed onto a platform were prepared from stainless steel to receive a posterior 3‐unit FPD with an intermediate pontic. Specimens were randomly divided into 5 groups (n = 20): Metal‐ceramic (control group), Lava Zirconia system, Vita In‐Ceram YZ, IPS e.max ZirCAD, and Lava Plus. Half of the specimens of each group (n = 10) underwent no preloading, and the other half were subjected to thermomechanical loading in a masticatory simulator, and then all FPDs were loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed. The load to fracture of the veneering ceramic and the load to fracture of framework (total fracture) were recorded for each specimen. Data were statistically analyzed using 2‐way ANOVA, Tukey's HSD post‐hoc test, Student's t test, and Weibull statistics, α = 0.05. Results Significant differences were recorded between the metal‐ceramic and veneered zirconia groups for the veneering ceramic load (p < 0.001; f = 36.62; f = 57.76) in no preloading and thermomechanical loading subgroups, respectively, but no differences were observed between the static and thermomechanical loading conditions. No differences were observed among the veneered zirconia groups. For the total load to fracture, significant differences were observed according to the material (p < 0.001; f = 500.8), between the metal‐ceramic and Lava Plus group and the other zirconia groups in no preloading subgroup, and between metal‐ceramic and the other groups (p < 0.001; f = 303.33) in thermomechanical loading subgroup. For the type of preloading, significant differences were observed (p = 0.02; f = 5.24) between the Lava Plus group and the other groups. Thermomechanical loading significantly decreased the fracture load of the Lava Plus group (p = 0.005). The Weibull statistics corroborated the results. Conclusions Monolithic zirconia restorations provided the highest load to fracture values among the zirconia groups tested; however, the results indicate that they must be used in the oral environment with caution, because their load to fracture was influenced by the aging simulation.

Zirconia FPDs exhibited the same survival rate (100%) as MC FPDs after 5 years; however, the success rate was 80%, because an increased rate of chipping was observed in zirconia restorations.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the fracture load and the fracture pattern of monolithic and veneered zirconia posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Twenty standardized steel dies were prepared to receive posterior 3-unit FDPs. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=10): (1) Lava Zirconia, and (2) Lava Plus. All FDPs were cemented using glass ionomer cement and subjected to thermal and mechanical cycling at 5-55ºC with a 30-s dwell time for 120,000 masticatory cycles. All specimens were subjected to a three-point bending test until fracture. Data were statistically analyzed using Student's t test, paired t-test and Weibull statistics (α=0.05). No differences were observed in fracture load between the groups. Veneering ceramic fractured before than framework in veneered zirconia group. The fracture pattern was different. The tested groups demonstrated clinically acceptable fracture load values. Monolithic zirconia solves the chipping problem.