The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Overlays or Ceramic Fragments for Tooth Restoration: An Analysis of Fracture Resistance

Matheus Coelho Bandéca, Adriana Santos Malheiros, Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez, Leily Macedo Firoozmand, Mônica Barros Silva

Citation Information : Bandéca MC, Malheiros AS, de Jesus Tavarez RR, Firoozmand LM, Silva MB. Overlays or Ceramic Fragments for Tooth Restoration: An Analysis of Fracture Resistance. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (1):56-60.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1487

Published Online: 01-02-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to evaluate the mode of fracture and resistance of partial ceramic restorations of posterior teeth.

Materials and methods

Thirty healthy upper premolars were selected and divided into three groups (n = 10): Group 1— control, healthy unrestored teeth, group 2—teeth restored with ceramic fragments; and group 3—teeth restored with ceramic overlays. The restorations were manufactured with feldspathic ceramic and cemented with RelyX ARC resin cement. After being stored in distilled water for 7 days, the teeth were subjected to axial compression mechanical testing with a universal testing machine. Force was applied to the long axis of the tooth at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). The mode of fracture was scored according to the degree of involvement of the tooth structure and the type of restoration.


A significant difference (p < 0.05) was showed between groups 2 (1155 N) and 3 (846.6 N), but there was no significant difference between group 1 and the other groups (1046 N), More extensive fractures were prevalent in the healthy teeth group (Group 1), which had no occlusal coverage; less severe fractures were found in groups 2 and 3.


We conclude that teeth restored with ceramic fragments may offer greater resistance to fractures compared to teeth that have overlay restorations.

How to cite this article

de Jesus Tavarez RR, Firoozmand LM, Silva MB, Malheiros AS, Bandéca MC. Overlays or Ceramic Fragments for Tooth Restoration: An Analysis of Fracture Resistance. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(1):56-60.

PDF Share
  1. Tooth surface loss and associated risk factors in northern Saudi Arabia. ISRN Dent Aug 7; Forthcoming 2012.
  2. Composite resins and bonded porcelain: the postamalgam era? J Calif Dent Assoc 2006 Feb;34(2):135-147.
  3. Influence of overlay restorative materials and load cusps on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars. Quintessence Int 2009 Oct;40(9):729-737.
  4. In vitro fracture strength of teeth restored with different all-ceramic crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2004 Nov;92(5):491-495.
  5. Dental ceramics: An update. J Conserv Dent 2010 Oct;13(4):195-203.
  6. Clinical evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light-cured composite: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012 Aug;16(4):1071-1079.
  7. Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2012 Jul-Aug;25(4):395-402.
  8. Fracture resistance of premolars restored with partial ceramic restorations and submitted to two different loading stresses. Oper Dent 2006 Mar-Apr; 3 221
  9. Fracture resistance of premolars restored with inlay and onlay ceramic restorations and luted with two different agents. J Prosthodont Res 2011 Jan;55(1):53-59.
  10. Ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: influence of remaining cusp wall thickness on the marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro. Oper Dent 2009 Jan-Feb;34(1):32-42.
  11. Comparison of load-fatigue performance of posterior ceramic onlay restorations under different preparation designs. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012 Jun;33(2):2-9.
  12. No-preparation porcelain veneers-back to the future! Dent Today 2005 Mar;24(3):86-91.
  13. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and X-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Apr;89(4):374-380.
  14. Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications. J Prosthet Dent 2004 Jun;91(6):561-569.
  15. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucitereinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Jun;95(6):421-429.
  16. Strength of a feldspar ceramic according to the thickness and polymerization mode of the resin cement coating. Dent Mater J 2011 May;30(3):323-329.
  17. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhesive Dent 2001 Spring;3(1):45-64.
  18. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J Dent 1992 Jun;20(3):31-39.
  19. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent 2004 May;32(4):265-268.
  20. Maximal bite force with centric and eccentric load. J Oral Rehabil 1982 Sep;9(5):445-450.
  21. Influence of clenching intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area and average bite pressure. J Dent Res 1999 Jul;78(7):1336-1344.
  22. Fracture strength of teeth restored with ceramic inlays and overlays. Braz Dent J 2009;20(2):143-148.
  23. Influence of silane heat treatment on bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic. Dent Mater J 2011;30(3):392-397.
  24. Strength of a feldspar ceramic according to the thickness and polymerization mode of the resin cement coating. Dent Mater J 2011;30(3):323-329.
  25. Effectiveness of the bond established between ceramic inlays and dentin using different luting protocols. J Adhes Dent 2012 Apr;14(2):147-154.
  26. Influence of ceramic inlays and composite fillings on fracture resistance of premolars in vitro. Stomatology 2008;10(4):121-126.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.