Background The bond strength between the zirconia core and ceramic veneer is the weakest component in the layered structure. Delamination of veneering ceramic is reported as one of the most frequent problems associated with Veneered Zirconia restorations. The aim of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of lithium di silicate porcelain to that of feldspathic porcelain on a zirconia Substrate. Material and Methods Two groups (group A and B) of zirconia blocks with each group having 20 samples were fabricated according to Schmitz Schulmeyer method. Group A (n =20 ) samples were veneered with feldspathic veneering porcelain and Group B (n=20) samples were veneered with heat pressed lithium disilicate ceramic. The fabricated samples were then evaluated for shear bond strength in Universal Testing Machine. The values were then statistically analyzed using independent sample t-test. Results Results of the current study showed that mean shear bond strength of feldspathic porcelain 11.40±1.29 MPa is comparatively lower than the mean shear bond strength of the lithium disilicate group 18.81±1.76 MPa. The statistical analysis indicated that ( p value<0.01) there is a statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength between the two groups. Conclusions The heat pressed lithium disilicate veneering materials has a better shear bond strength compared to feldspathic veneering ceramic material when layered to a zirconia core and it can be used as a viable alternative material to feldspathic porcelain layering material in bilayered zirconia restorations. Key words: Zirconia, bilayered ceramics, lithium disilicate , shear bond strength, ceramic chipping.

Aim: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. Settings and Design: An in vitro perspective Materials and Methods: Two mandibular three-dimensional Finite Element Models were constructed by the CREO version 5 software, in which Model A depicts a mandible with ALL ON FOUR implant supported prost hesis and Model B will depict TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis. Model A contains four implants, two anterior straight and posterior tilted implants (30°), a bar and denture containing acrylic teeth. In Model B, it contains three straight implants and a prefabricated compensatory bar with standardised dimensions. To evaluate and compare the stress distribution between the bone and implant interface, one deleterious cantilever load of upto 300 N is applied on the second molar bilaterally and simultaneously. Another full bite biting load of 150 N is given bilaterally and simultaneously on the central groove of premolars and molars. Statistical Analysis Used: The results of the simulations obtained were analysed in terms of Von Mises equivalent stress levels at the bone -implant interface. Results: The results of loading 1 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress was recorded in the anterior implant region of the Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. The results of loading 2 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress were recorded in the anterior implant region Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. Conclusion: This invitro study concludes that All on Four implant supported prosthesis showed better stress distribution when compared to the Trefoil concept.