PurposeThe aim of this study was to describe different designs of semimonolithic crowns made of translucent and high-translucent zirconia materials and to evaluate the effect on fracture resistance and fracture mode.MethodsOne hundred crowns with different designs were produced and divided into five groups (n=20): monolithic (M), partially veneered monolithic (semimonolithic) with 0.3 mm buccal veneer (SM0.3), semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer (SM0.5), semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer supported by wave design (SMW), and semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer supported by occlusal cap design (SMC). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10) according to the materials used, translucent and high-translucent zirconia. All crowns underwent artificial aging before loading until fracture. Fracture mode analysis was performed. Fracture loads and fracture modes were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Fisher’s exact probability tests (P≤0.05).ResultsSM0.3 design showed highest fracture loads with no significant difference compared to M and SMW designs (P>0.05). SM0.5 design showed lower fracture loads compared to SMW and SWC designs. Crowns made of translucent zirconia showed higher fracture loads compared to those made of high-translucent zirconia. M, SM0.3, and all but one of the SMC crowns showed complete fractures with significant differences in fracture mode compared to SMW and SM0.5 crowns with cohesive veneer fractures (P≤0.05).ConclusionTranslucent and high-translucent zirconia crowns might be used in combination with 0.3 mm microcoating porcelain layer with semimonolithic design to enhance the esthetic properties of restorations without significantly decreasing fracture resistance of the crowns. If 0.5 mm porcelain layer is needed for a semimonolithic crown, wave design or cap design might be used to increase fracture resistance. In both cases, fracture resistance gained is likely to be clinically sufficient as the registered fracture loads were high in relation to expected loads under clinical use.

Objective: To evaluate fracture strength of veneered translucent zirconium dioxide crowns designed with different porcelain layer thicknesses. Materials and Methods: Sixty crowns, divided into six groups of 10, were used in this study. Groups were divided according to different thicknesses of porcelain veneer on translucent zirconium dioxide cores of equal thickness (0.5 mm). Porcelain thicknesses were 2.5, 2.0, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5 and 0.3 mm. Crowns were artificially aged before loaded to fracture. Determination of fracture mode was performed using light microscope. Results: Group 1.0 mm showed significantly (p ≤ .05) highest fracture loads (mean 1540 N) in comparison with groups 2.5, 2.0 and 0.3 mm (mean 851, 910 and 1202 N). There was no significant difference (p>.05) in fracture loads among groups 1.0, 0.8 and 0.5 mm (mean 1540, 1313 and 1286 N). There were significantly (p ≤ .05) more complete fractures in group 0.3 mm compared to all other groups which presented mainly cohesive fractures. Conclusions: Translucent zirconium dioxide crowns can be veneered with minimal thickness layer of 0.5 mm porcelain without showing significantly reduced fracture strength compared to traditionally veneered (1.0–2.0 mm) crowns. Fracture strength of micro-veneered crowns with a layer of porcelain (0.3 mm) is lower than that of traditionally veneered crowns but still within range of what may be considered clinically sufficient. Porcelain layers of 2.0 mm or thicker should be used where expected loads are low only.

Purpose:To evaluate the influence of the framework designs on the stress distribution within tooth-supported partially veneered fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made of translucent zirconia under simulated loads using a three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Material and Methods: For a linear 3D-FEA, simplified 3D solid models of prepared abutment teeth (first premolar and first molar) with different 3-unit FDPs were created. The models with different FDP designs-monolithic zirconia (control); semimonolithic zirconia with 0.3 mm veneer thickness (SM0.3); semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness (SM0.5); semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness supported with cap design (SMC), and semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness supported with wave design (SMW)-were analyzed using 3D-FEA. The elastic properties of the components (bone, dentine, cement, translucent zirconia, and veneering porcelain) were obtained from the published data for FEA. Simulated static loading forces (300 N) were applied at 10°oblique direction over six points in the occlusal surfaces of the FDPs. Maximum principal stress, shear stress, and safety factor were calculated and analyzed among the different models. Results: Semi-monolithic with cap design showed the smallest maximum principal stress levels in the veneering porcelain compared to all other models (SM0.3, SM0.5, SMW). The SM0.3 had lower maximum principal stress levels in the veneering porcelain compared to SM0.5. Regarding stresses in the zirconia framework, all models had comparable results in maximum principal tensile stresses, except SMW had a lower value. Maximum principal stress levels were located in the veneer component of SM0.3, SM0.5, and SMW, whereas, such levels were observed in the cervical areas of the zirconia frameworks of SMC and control. The SM0.3 had the highest maximum shear stress levels at the zirconia-veneer interface, while SMW had the lowest shear values. The 3D-FEA models with different FDP designs showed different minimum safety factor levels. Conclusions: Framework and veneer designs play a significant role in the stress distribution of the partially veneered zirconia FDPs under loading. The FDPs with zirconia frameworks with cap design minimize the maximum principal tensile stress in the veneering porcelain. The FDPs with 0.3-mm-veneering porcelain show low maximum principal tensile stress in the veneering porcelain, but highest maximum shear stress at the zirconia-veneer interface. The FDPs with wave design of zirconia frameworks minimize the maximum shear stress considerably.