Role of microstructure on contact damage and strength degradation of micaceous glass-ceramics

Influence of Layer Thickness on Stress Distribution in Ceramic-Cement-Dentin Multilayer Systems

“…As shown in previous studies, the primary modes of failure in these structures are radial cracking at the brittle undersurface and/or cone cracking at the top surface 2,5,12,13) . In addition, it has been recently shown that tensile stress concentration at the cementation surface of the ceramic layer was the predominant factor controlling ceramic failure 10) .…”

“…It has been reported that most of the crown failures occur at the cementation surface as opposed to damage on the occlusal surface 3,4) . Although the mechanical properties of ceramic materials have improved, especially under concentrated loading conditions, their clinical performance and longevity in the oral environment are somehow lackluster because of possible fracture damage that may develop in the structure of all-ceramic systems 2,5,6) . For in vitro failure testing of all-ceramic restorations, it is expedient to use systems that mimic clinical failures 3) .…”

“…First and foremost, it can emulate the loading conditions experienced by dental restorations and it is also able to represent the important aspects of crown response in oral function; additionally, it is an economical and simple testing protocol 2,7) . With this testing system, contact damage modes have been identified as cone cracking (brittle mode) and/or micro-deformation yield (quasi-plastic mode) on the surface of layered ceramic structures, and as radial cracking at the subsurface of the top layer 2,5,7,8) . These damage modes have been reported in many investigations, beginning with monolayer ceramic systems 2,5,6) , and proceeding to bilayer [8][9][10][11] and trilayer [11][12][13] systems with dentin-like substrate materials.…”

“…With this testing system, contact damage modes have been identified as cone cracking (brittle mode) and/or micro-deformation yield (quasi-plastic mode) on the surface of layered ceramic structures, and as radial cracking at the subsurface of the top layer 2,5,7,8) . These damage modes have been reported in many investigations, beginning with monolayer ceramic systems 2,5,6) , and proceeding to bilayer [8][9][10][11] and trilayer [11][12][13] systems with dentin-like substrate materials. Further on fracture damage studies, tests investigating coating/substrate mismatch (in terms of moduli of elasticity) 8,10,12,14) and thicknesses of these layers 8,10,12) have been conducted.…”

Analysis of subcritical crack growth in dental ceramics using fracture mechanics and fractography

“…SCG of various dental ceramics has been investigated using cyclic, static, and dynamic loading methods [7,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Analyzing the SCG for both veneer and core components of the same all-ceramic system would enable lifetime prediction using finite element models.…”