d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Microtensile bond strength of different components

of core veneered all-ceramic restorations
Part II: Zirconia veneering ceramics

Moustafa N. Aboushelib, Cornelis J. Kleverlaan , Albert J. Feilzer

Department of Dental Material Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije
Universiteit, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. The purpose of this research was to investigate microtensile bond strength
Received 18 August 2005 between one type of zirconia substrate and various commercial veneer ceramics. The effect
Accepted 25 October 2005 of an optional liner material between the core and veneer was also evaluated where appli-
cable.
Methods. Bilayered zirconia veneer discs were fabricated from ve layering and two pressable
Keywords: veneer ceramics. Additionally, discs from each veneer ceramic were prepared. The discs
All-ceramic were cut into microbars of 6 mm in length and 1 mm in cross-section. The microtensile bond
Zirconia strength was tested in a universal testing machine. The fracture surfaces of the microbars
Delamination were examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and EDAX.
Microtensile bond strength Results. The microtensile strength of Rondo Dentine and Lava Dentine veneer ceramics were
signicantly higher than the other tested veneer ceramics. Furthermore, the layered sys-
tems Rondo Dentine and Ceram Express were signicantly stronger than the other tested
coreveneer ceramics. The application of liner material dramatically affected the bond
strength and failure mode, which was also material dependent. SEM analysis showed that
two pressable veneers and one type of layering veneer ceramic failed entirely cohesively in
veneer side while the remaining test groups had higher percentage of interfacial failure.
Signicance. Selection of stronger veneer ceramics which have good bond strength with zirco-
nia can reduce the chances of chipping and delamination under function. The liner material
should only be used with some layering veneers but not in combination with pressable
veneers as it will result in weakening of the microtensile bond strength.
2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction all-ceramic partial dentures without any limitation regarding

Core veneered all-ceramic restorations are possible substi-
tutes for the strong but less esthetic metal core sub-structures.
Combining the strength of ceramic cores and superior esthet-
ics of a weaker veneer ceramic can result in a reliable and
more biocompatible restoration [1]. The introduction of zirco-
nium dioxide or zirconia opened the door for designing xed
the size of the xed partial denture [2]. Its unique qualities,
strength, transformation toughening, white color, chemical
and structural stability made zirconia the core material of
choice [3].
In previous work, the microtensile strength of a variety
of widely used core and veneering ceramics was evaluated.
In addition, the bond strength between the core and the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 2051888237; fax: +31 206692726.
E-mail address: dental.materials@acta.nl (C.J. Kleverlaan).
0109-5641/$ see front matter 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.014
858 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863

veneer was evaluated. One interesting nding was, despite
the high microtensile strength (340 MPa) of zirconia, that its
bond strength (29 MPa) with veneering ceramic was inferior
when compared to, e.g. IPS Empress Eris system (45 MPa). As the
strength of composite structures is equal to the weakest part
in the structure, a low coreveneer bond strength can result in
chipping and/or delamination of the veneer ceramic [4].
Various studies indicated that the strength of veneer
ceramic dictates the strength of layered core veneered restora-
tions. The strength of these restorations may be further com-
promised by complex distribution of tensile stresses. If these
tensile stresses are not seriously considered in the design of
the structure, failure can occur at unexpected low stresses
[5,6].
The location of interface as failure origin has been reported
in retrieved failed clinical restorations as well as in laboratory
testing procedures [79]. In a laboratory study zirconia layered
crowns failed basically by delamination of the veneer from
intact core structure, while crowns made of layered lithium
disilicate core material failed by fracture of both the core and
veneer ceramic [10].
Failure of brittle ceramics is also related to structural aws,
which tend to concentrate stresses and can act as fracture
initiation sites [11]. There are various causes and types of
structural aws which could be located at the surface, in the
bulk of the material, or at coreveneer interface [12]. As dental
ceramics are brittle they have limited ability to absorb elastic
energy; thus tensile stresses and structural aws can result in
premature failure under low functional stresses [13].
Different factors may cause inferior coreveneer bond
strength. Well known factors are pre-stresses due to differ-
ences in thermal expansion coefcients (TEC) of the core
and veneer ceramics, poor wetting of the core by the veneer
ceramic, ring shrinkage of veneer ceramic, transformation of
zirconia crystals at coreveneer interface due to thermal inu-
ences or stress loading, and inherent aws formation during
various fabrication steps [14].
Various veneering ceramics are specially developed for zir-
conia core material. Sometimes a special liner is used to mod-
ify the color of the core. Omitting this liner did not weaken
zirconiaveneer bond strength but it inuenced the type of
failure for one tested commercial system to an increased
chance of interfacial failure [4]. Besides veneer ceramics used
for standard layering technique, new ceramic veneers were
developed to enable a new manufacturing method where the
molten veneer is pressed against the zirconia core. These
materials were aimed to create veneered zirconia restorations
with good clinical performance.
The aim of this research is to investigate the bond strength
between one type of zirconia substructure material and a vari-
ety of veneering ceramic materials using microtensile bond
strength test. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) will be used
to classify failure patterns, while the interface chemistry will
be evaluated using X-ray diffraction analysis (EDX).
2. Materials and methods
The zirconia specimens were veneered with one of the seven
veneering ceramics. Three discs per each veneering ceramic
were prepared. The properties of used materials are summa-
rized in Table 1.
2.1. Preparation of zirconia core
Cylindrical zirconia blocks were cut in the green state using a
low speed diamond disc (Isomet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL,
USA) whereafter they were cleaned, dried, and sintered (Cer-
con Heat, Degudent GmbH, Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany). After
ring, the discs (19 mm diameter and 3 mm high) were sand-

Table 1 Material properties according to manufacturers data

Material Manufacturer Batch Composition TECa

Cercon Base Degudent GmbH, Zirconium oxide 92 vol%, yttrium 10.5

Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany oxide 5 vol%, hafnium oxide
2 vol%, alumina and silica < 1 vol%
Cercon Ceram S 16694 Feldspathic porcelain 9.3
Cercon Ceram S powder liner 16679 Selenium, feldspathic porcelain
Cercon Ceram Express Posterior 303623C Feldspathic porcelain 10.5
Cercon Ceram Express Anterior 305892A Feldspathic porcelain 10.5
Cercon Ceram Express Anterior Liner 310394 Feldspathic porcelain 10.5
Nobel Rondo Zirconia dentine Nobel Biocare, Gotenborg, Sweden 0105 Fine grained homogenouse 9.3
feldspathic porcelain
Nobel Rondo Zirconia shoulder 0104 Fine grained homogenouse 9.3
feldspathic porcelain
Nobel Rondo Base Liner 0104 Fine grained homogenouse 9.3
feldspathic porcelain
Lava Ceram dentine 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany 207650 Feldspathic porcelain
Lava Ceram frame-work modier 153836 Feldspathic porcelain
Sakura Interaction Elephant Dental, Hoorn, The 407511 Two frit homogenouse feldspathic 9.9
Netherlands porcelain
Experimental pressing veneer ACTA, The Netherlands Two frit homogeneous glass 10.5
ceramic

a
Thermal expansion coefcient in ppm/ C between 25 and 500 C.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863
blasted (120 m Al2 O3 particles at 350 kPa pressure) accord-
ing to the manufacturers pre-treatment recommendation.
Finally, the discs were ultrasonically and steam cleaned.
2.2. Veneering procedure for manual layering
The prepared zirconia discs were placed in an adjustable alu-
minum mold where 1.5 mm clearance was available for con-
densing the veneer ceramic. The powder of each veneer was
mixed with the manufacturers liquid and the obtained slurry
was plotted with tissue to draw excess water. The mold was
lled, ultrasonically condensed, and the condensed slurry was
pressed using pneumatic piston. Each layered zirconia disc
was red according to the ring program of the manufac-
turer (Austromat 3001, Dekema Dental-Keramikofen GmbH &
Co., Germany). The previous step was repeated giving a nal
veneer thickness of 3 mm. The same steps were used to pre-
pare homogeneous veneer discs, which were used to evaluate
the microtensile bond strength of the veneer itself.
A pilot study, using a brush for applying the liner, showed
the formation of air bubbles in the liner layer. Therefore, for
the specimens where liner material was used, the mixed liner
was applied using a glass ball to create an even well con-
densed layer. The liner was red independently according
to the manufacturers instructions. After ring the liner, the
veneer ceramic was applied as described above.
2.3. Veneering procedure of pressable veneers
A wax disc (19 mm diameter and 3 mm high) was sealed
against the prepared zirconia disc. A wax sprue (3 mm diame-
ter) was attached to the center of the wax disc and the samples
were processed using manufacturers instructions and equip-
ment for pressing technique. In the groups where a liner was
applied, the surface of the red liner was gently sandblasted
with glass particles to remove the surface smooth layer and
then steam cleaned. The same technique was used only that
the wax disc was sealed against the red liner material. Finally,
the pressed rings were devested, sandblasted and the ceramic
sprue was cut under water cooling using a diamond disc.
2.4. Cutting technique
Each veneered zirconia disc was cut into microbars of 6 mm
length and 1 mm cross-section (Isomet 1000, Buehler). The
microbars were carefully collected and examined under a
stereo microscope for the presence of surface defects and only
sound bars were used. Randomly, 5 microbars from each pre-
pared specimen were selected (n = 15 per group). In addition
to microbars, three slices from each test group were used
to examine the zirconiaveneer interface. The slices were
polished using 600, 800, 1000 silicon carbide paper (Ecomet,
Buehler Ltd., Evanston, IL, USA).
2.5. Microtensile bond strength test
A light cured resin cement (Clearl SE Bond, Kuraray Med-
ical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was used to attach the micro-
bars to a specially designed attachment unit with care that
coreveneer interface is carefully centered in the 0.8 mm free
859
space of the attachment unit [15]. The bonded bars were
loaded to failure in a universal testing machine at a cross-
head speed of 1 mm min1 (Instron 6022, Instron Limited, High
Wycombe, UK). The maximum load at failure was recorded
on a computer. The broken bars were carefully removed from
the attachment unit and the zirconia side was examined rst
under a stereo microscope, then gold coated for SEM examina-
tion where the interface failure mode was observed to enable
evaluation of the failure mode. The failure mode was classi-
ed as either cohesive in the veneer ceramic or interfacial at
coreveneer interface.
2.6. SEM and EDX analyses of the coreveneer
interface
The polished sections were prepared for SEM and sputter
coated. The coreveneer interface was examined under dif-
ferent magnications (XL 20, Philips, Eindhoven, NL). After
primary SEM examination the polished sections were slightly
etched using 2% hydrouoric acid for 15 s to remove the smear
layer and enhance structural analysis.
The chemical structure exactly at the interface was ana-
lyzed using EDX. The zirconia and veneer sides were analyzed
at distances 2, 4, 6, and 10 m, from the interface.
2.7. Statistical analysis
Statistical differences were analyzed with two-way ANOVA
and Tukey post hoc tests (P = 0.05) using SigmaStat Version 3.0
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, USA).
3. Results
After preparing the veneer, coreveneer, and the
corelinerveneer specimens they were cut into microbars.
During this process no premature failures were observed.
Two-way ANOVA showed the veneer (F = 24.8; P < 0.001) struc-
ture of specimen; veneer, coreveneer, or corelinerveneer
(F = 22.3; P < 0.001), and their interactions (F = 4.6 P < 0.001)
had a signicant effect on the microtensile strength of the
tested specimens. The mean microtensile bond strength and
standard deviation are summarized in Table 2. The results of
the statistical analysis of the structure of specimen; veneer,
coreveneer, or corelinerveneer, within each indepen-
dent veneer ceramic material and between different veneer
ceramics are summarized in Table 2.
Regarding microtensile strength, Rondo Dentine and Lava
Dentine veneer ceramics were signicantly stronger than the
other tested veneer ceramics. The coreveneer bond strength
was not only material dependent, but also the applied liner
was of inuence on the bond strength. The application of liner
material for Rondo Dentine and Cercon Express signicantly
weakened the coreveneer bond strength. On the other hand,
the application of liner material signicantly improved the
coreveneer bond strength for Sakura veneer ceramic, while
the bond strength of Ceram S and Lava Dentine were the same
with and without liner.
A close look at the failure mode showed that this was not
straightforward. The term interfacial failure was used instead
860 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863

Table 2 Failure strength (in MPa) and failure mode of the different specimens
Material Structure* MTBS (MPa)# Failure pattern
D a
Ceram S Veneer 28.1 (4.5) 100% cohesive
LayeredE 17.2 (4.1) 60% interfacial
Layered with linerA 26.3 (8.6)a 60% cohesive

Ceram Express VeneerBCD 37.0 (6.7)ab 100% cohesive

LayeredAB 38.6 (6.4)a 100% cohesive
Layered with linerA 29.7 (8.9)b 95% interfacial

Rondo Dentine VeneerA 48.8 (15.2) 100% cohesive

LayeredA 41.1 (11.1) 100% cohesive
Layered with linerA 30.8 (14.5) 100% cohesive

Rondo Shoulder VeneerBC 36.2 (9.9)a 100% cohesive

LayeredA 39.3 (9.6)a 70% cohesive

Lava Dentine VeneerAB 44.4 (15.1) 100% cohesive

LayeredBC 30.9 (7.2)a 55% interfacial
Layered with linerA 34.3 (7.0)a 70% cohesive

Sakura Interaction VeneerCD 28.6 (6.1)a 100% cohesive

LayeredED 19.9 (9.2)b 95% interfacial
Layered with liner 23.8 (7.8)ab 90% cohesive

Experimental pressable VeneerCD 25.0 (9.6)a 100% cohesive

LayeredCD 25.2 (7.4)a 95% cohesive

Groups with the same superscript letter (AE) within veneer, layered, and layered with liner were not signicantly different.
#
Groups with the same superscript letter (a and b) within a material were not signicantly different.

of adhesive because it classies the failure according to the
fracture initiation site which is related to the weakest link in
the structure rather than classifying failure based on material
structure at fracture surface. For example, a crack that was ini-
tiated at the interface can propagate though the weakest layer
due to an asymmetric stress distribution in the specimen. This
can leave traces of either elements of the microbar attached
to the interface and when examined for analysis this will give
a false classication of cohesive failure.
Fig. 1A demonstrates the core side of a tested microbar.
Examining the specimen reveals that the fracture originated
and propagated in the veneer ceramic and thus failure was
cohesive. In Fig. 1B, examination of the core side of a tested
microbar gives impression of a cohesive failure as most of the
fracture surface is in the veneer ceramic. Careful examina-
tion of the same specimen reveals that fracture originated at
coreveneer interface (see Fig. 1C) and zirconia crystals are
exposed at fracture origin (Fig. 1D). The fracture pattern of the
pressable veneer specimens was mainly cohesive, while lay-
ered veneers demonstrated higher percentage of interfacial
failure. Rondo Dentine ceramic was an exception because it
failed entirely cohesively.
The liner material had also an effect on the failure mode.
The failure mode for Rondo Dentine and Cercon Express
groups was entirely cohesive when the veneer ceramic was
directly applied zirconia, application of liner material for
these veneer ceramics resulted in mixed cohesive and inter-
facial fracture patterns (see Table 2). An important observa-
tion regarding the use of liner material with pressable veneer
ceramics is that the two materials have different structural
composition and that pressing the veneer ceramic over a
smooth as red liner material results in poor contact between
the two materials and thus linerveneer interface becomes
a potential site for crack initiation (Fig. 2). Sandblasting the
liner material before pressing the veneer improves the inter-
face between the two materials (Fig. 2B).
SEM analysis of zirconiaveneer interface revealed that
structural defects can interrupt the contact between the zir-
conia core and the veneer ceramic (see Fig. 3). Examining the
coreveneer interface of sound specimens showed that press-
able veneers had better surface contact with zirconia.
EDX analysis of zirconiaveneer interface revealed that
some veneer elements as silica, sodium, aluminum, and
potassium can diffuse into the zirconia layer. The concen-
tration of these elements gradually decreases till a depth of
810 m in zirconia.
4. Discussion
Clinical recommendations on materials, procedures, or meth-
ods are often based on mechanical laboratory tests. One of the
most common tests used for evaluating the bond strength is
the shear bond test, which was also used to evaluate the bond
strength between core and veneer in different all-ceramic sys-
tems. Dundar et al. [16] reported shear bond strength in the
range of 2341 MPa and Al-Dohan et al. [17] reported shear
bond strength in the range of 2231 MPa for commercially
available core veneered all-ceramic systems. In both studies,
the shear bond strength between the core and the veneer of
Empress 2 was the highest. The reported values by Al-Dohan
et al. showed that there was no signicant difference between
the coreveneer bond strength of Empress 2/Eris, Procera
AllZircon/CZR, and DC-Zircon/Vita D. Furthermore, an inter-
esting nding was the adhesive mode of fracture observed for
the stiffer alumina core material [16,17]. However, using shear
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863 861

Fig. 2 (A) Different crystal structures between liner

material and Ceram Express pressable veneer. Structural
defects are observed when the veneer is pressed over the
smooth liner material. (B) Sandblasting the liner material
before pressing the veneer ceramic improves contact
between the two materials and eliminates microgaps.

bond test may lead to undesired stress pattern distribution,

causing cohesive failures and erroneous interpretation of the
data.
Application of the microtensile bond strength test can over-
come these problems and as long as the tested microbars are
free from cutting defects, the obtained data are highly stan-
dardized [18]. Recently, using the microtensile bond strength
test for measuring the tensile strength of the core and veneer

Fig. 1 (A) Core side of broken microbar demonstrating

cohesive fracture pattern. Fracture originated and
propagated in the veneer ceramic. (B) Core side of a broken
microbar demonstrating apparent cohesive fracture at
initial observation. (C) Same specimen examined at higher
magnication reveals that the crack originated at
coreveneer interface. Arrest line indicates path of fracture
propagation. (D) Fracture origin of same specimen
Fig. 3 Structural defects observed between zirconia and
demonstrates exposed zirconia crystals.
layering veneer ceramics.
862 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863
components of all-ceramic restorations allowed direct evalu-
ation of their tensile strength. These clinically signicant data
can be used to solve practical and theoretical questions. The
microtensile bond strength tests for Empress/Eris and Ceron
Base/Cercon Ceram S were reported. The microtensile bond
strength of Empress was again the highest, which is in agree-
ment with the reported shear bond strength, but in contrast
to these previous studies the microtensile bond strength test
of Cercon Base/Cercon Ceram S was signicantly lower and
the fracture pattern was almost completely adhesive. Further-
more, it was shown that stress distribution in the microbars
was not homogenous due to the different E-moduli of the core
and the veneer, and also the way the specimens were attached
to the device [4].
Delamination can be the result of the use of the weak
veneer ceramic or due to a weak bond between the core
and veneer. The observed tensile strength of the veneers as
reported here are between 25.0 and 48.8 MPa, but one should
keep in mind that real tensile strength of these veneers are
ca. 2.5 higher near the attachment points, due to the inho-
mogeneous stress distribution in the microbars [4].
From Table 2 it can be seen that the use of a stronger
veneer will result in stronger coreveneer microbars. The
failure mode of Ceram S, Sakura, Lava Dentine, and Ceram
Express (with liner) was mainly interfacial. The observed bond
strengths of 17.230.9 MPa are actually ca. 2 higher at the
interface, again due to the inhomogeneous stress distribu-
tion in the microbars [4]. If the failure mode is cohesive, one
can only estimate that the bond strength between the core
and veneer is stronger than a certain value. For example,
Ceram Express without a liner failed cohesively at 37.0 MPa,
which corresponds of a maximum stress of ca. 92.5 MPa at
failure (2.5), due the stress concentration near the attach-
ment point. On the other hand, at the same load the maximum
stress at the interface is only 74.0 MPa (2). As a result, the
estimated bond strength between the core and veneer is at
least twice the reported values in Table 2 if the failure mode
is cohesive.
Shoulder veneer ceramics were basically designed to be
used at the cervical margins of the coping to build up the
full thickness of nish line of the preparation. For the Rondo
veneering system not only was the shoulder veneer signif-
icantly weaker than dentine veneer but it also resulted in
increased percentage of interfacial failure; thus it had no ben-
ecial effect on the restoration.
The liner material is basically used to mask the white color
of zirconia and to improve the bond strength between the core
and the veneer layers. The application of this liner is recom-
mended for both Sakura Interaction, Ceram S and Lava groups
to improve the overall zirconiaveneer bond strength but if it
is used with pressable veneer ceramics it signicantly weak-
ens the bond strength and dramatically increases the chance
of interfacial failure and delamination of veneer ceramic from
intact zirconia core structures [2].
The fracture pattern of the pressable veneer specimens was
mainly cohesive, while layered veneers demonstrated higher
percentage of interfacial failure. The Rondo Dentine was an
exception because it failed entirely cohesively. Examining the
coreveneer interface of sound specimens showed that press-
able veneers had better surface contact with zirconia. This can
be explained by the improved surface contact between the two
materials due to the applied external pressure, especially at
the microscopic surface roughness level. As they cool below
glass transition point, also under pressure, there is less chance
for microgap formation as a result of deformation and cooling
stresses. During multiple ring of veneer ceramic over zirconia
core, relaxation of residual stresses and tetragonal monolithic
transformation of zirconia may occur [19]. This not only affects
the strength of the structure, but also may affect coreveneer
bond strength. Surface lifts were observed during tetragonal
monolithic transformation [20,21]. If these uplifts occur, even
if they are microscopic in nature, it can reduce the coreveneer
bond strength (see Fig. 3).
The effect of surface nish of zirconia on coreveneer bond
strength was previously investigated. Sandblasting was found
to decrease the percentage of interfacial failure pattern [4].
Interestingly, the same observation applies for the liner mate-
rial. A pressable veneer ceramics over sandblasted liner mate-
rial eliminates linerveneer interface as possible failure ori-
gin and effectively reduce the percentage of interfacial failure
(Fig. 2A and B).
One of the expected causes of increased interfacial failure
in some test groups is the generation of tensile stresses at the
interface accompanied compressive stresses generated in the
veneer ceramic as a result of difference in TEC [22]. Both press-
able veneers used in this research had TEC exactly matching
that of zirconia and that may explain the absence of inter-
facial failure in these test groups. As the thermal expansion
coefcient of various types of dental ceramics is nonlinear, the
difference in TEC may result in unexpected high pre-stress at
the interface which could be the reason for interfacial failure
observed in some of the tested veneers [6].
Additionally, interface toughness plays a signicant role
and directly affects the failure pattern. When interface tough-
ness exceeds applied tensile stresses, the bilayered structure
acts as a homogenous material and the initiated crack crosses
the interface. On the other hand when the interface tough-
ness is low a propagating crack may deect at this weak region
and spread along the interface causing delamination of veneer
ceramic [8]. All previously described factors may be exagger-
ated in the oral condition due to fatigue and structural corro-
sion especially under the presence of water [23].
5. Conclusions
There was signicant difference in the microtensile strength
of the used ceramics and selection of stronger veneer is rec-
ommended to reduce chances of fracture and chipping under
function. For layering veneer ceramics, the application of liner
material is only recommended for some materials where it
improves bond strength with zirconia substrate and reduces
the interfacial failure percentage. Using a shoulder ceramic
had no benecial effect on the restoration, in fact it is weaker
and results in a higher percentage of interfacial failure com-
pared to the use of dentine ceramic.
Based on the ndings of this research, it is recommended
to use pressable veneer ceramics directly over sandblasted zir-
conia substrate as using a liner material becomes a weak link
in the layered structure. If liner material is used it should be
 dental materials
sandblasted to reduce chances of delamination of the veneer
ceramic.
references
[1] Lawn BR, Deng Y, Thompson VP. Use of contact testing in
the characterization and design of all-ceramic crownlike
layer structures: a review. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:495
510.
[2] Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Augthun M, Spiekermann
H. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate-, alumina-, and
zirconia-based three-unit xed partial dentures: a
laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:2318.
[3] Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength,
fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of
all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental
ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:44956.
[4] Aboushelib M, De Jager N, Pallav P, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile
bond strength of different components of core veneered
all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:98491.
[5] Guazzato M, Proos K, Quach L, Swain MV. Strength,
reliability and mode of fracture of bilayered
porcelain/zirconia (Y-TZP) dental ceramics. Biomaterials
2004;25:504552.
[6] Isgro G, Pallav P, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. The inuence
of the veneering porcelain and different surface
treatments on the biaxial exural strength of a
heat-pressed ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:46573.
[7] Thompson JY, Anusavice KJ, Naman A, Morris HF. Fracture
surface characterization of clinically failed all-ceramic
crowns. J Dent Res 1994;73:182432.
[8] Thompson G. Inuence of relative layer height and testing
method on the failure mode and origin in a bilayered
dental ceramic composite. Dent Mater 2000;16:23543.
[9] Pallis K, Griggs JA, Woody RD, Guillen GE, Miller AW.
Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems
for posterior applications. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:5619.
[10] Sundh A, Sjogren G. A comparison of fracture strength of
yttrium-oxidepartially-stabilized zirconia ceramic crowns
with varying core thickness, shapes and veneer ceramics. J
Oral Rehabil 2004;31:6828.
22 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 857863 863
[11] Scherrer SS, Robert Kelly J, Quinn GD, Xu K. Fracture
toughness (KIc) of a dental porcelain determined by
fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 1999;15:3428.
[12] Kelly J, Campbell S, Bowen H. Fracture-surface analysis of
dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:53641.
[13] Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Fracture toughness
and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic
dental materials. J Dent 2003;31:1818.
[14] De Jager N, Pallav P, Feilzer AJ. The inuence of design
parameters on the FEA-determined stress distribution in
CADCAM produced all-ceramic dental crowns. Dent Mater
2005;21:24251.
[15] El Zohairy AA, de Gee AJ, de Jager N, van Ruijven LJ, Feilzer
AJ. The inuence of specimen attachment and dimension
on microtensile strength. J Dent Res 2004;83:4204.
[16] Dundar M, Ozcan M, Comlekoglu E, Gungor MA, Artunc C.
Bond strengths of veneering ceramics to reinforced
ceramic core materials. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:712.
[17] Al-Dohan HM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Razzoog ME, Lang
BR. Shear strength of coreveneer interface in bi-layered
ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:34955.
[18] Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Cardoso PEC, Ferrari M.
Inuence of substrate, shape, and thickness on
microtensile specimens structural integrity and their
measured bond strengths. Dent Mater 2004;20:64354.
[19] Sundh A, Molin M, Sjogren G. Fracture resistance of
yttrium oxide partially-stabilized zirconia all-ceramic
bridges after veneering and mechanical fatigue testing.
Dent Mater 2005;21:47682.
[20] Chevalier J, Deville S, Munch E, Jullian R, Lair F. Critical
effect of cubic phase on aging in 3 mol% yttria-stabilized
zirconia ceramics for hip replacement prosthesis.
Biomaterials 2004;25:553945.
[21] Ardlin BI. Transformation-toughened zirconia for dental
inlays, crowns and bridges: chemical stability and effect of
low-temperature aging on exural strength and surface
structure. Dent Mater 2002;18:5905.
[22] Taskonak B, Mecholsky J, John J, Anusavice KJ. Residual
stresses in bilayer dental ceramics. Biomaterials
2005;26:323541.
[23] Della Bona A, Mecholsky J, John J, Anusavice KJ. Fracture
behavior of lithia disilicate- and leucite-based ceramics.
Dent Mater 2004;20:95662.