The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Cement Type on Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Monolith vs Bilayered Zirconia Single Crowns

Maria Rafaat Reslan, Mohamed Sayed, Mohammad Mostafa Rayyan, Hadeel Farouk

Keywords : Bilayered, Ceramic, Fracture resistance, Monolith, Zirconia

Citation Information : Reslan MR, Sayed M, Rayyan MM, Farouk H. Effect of Cement Type on Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Monolith vs Bilayered Zirconia Single Crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (8):576-581.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3546

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the fracture resistance and the mode of failure between monolith second-generation zirconia and bilayered first-generation zirconia single crowns cemented by resin cement and glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and methods: A total of 36 maxillary first premolar crowns (5 mm in length × 4 mm in cervical diameter, with a base of 6 mm) were computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) milled. They were divided into the following two groups (n = 18) according to the fabrication techniques: Group M – monolith zirconia crown (1-mm axial thickness and 2-mm occlusal thickness) and group B – bilayer zirconia crown (0.5-mm axial thickness and 1-mm occlusal thickness). Each group was further subdivided into the following two subgroups (n = 9) according to the cement used: Subgroup G – cemented using GIC; subgroup R – cemented using resin cement. All crowns were cemented to their corresponding resin dies and stored in distilled water for 72 hours. Each specimen was mounted to the lower member of the universal testing machine with a load cell of 5 kN and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Failure modes were analyzed for fractured parts using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: Subgroup MR recorded the highest fracture resistance mean value (3616 ± 347.2 N) while the BG subgroup recorded the statistically significant lowest fracture resistance mean value (1728.7 ± 115.3 N). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pairwise Tukey's post hoc tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0001) between groups M and B. One-way ANOVA followed by pairwise Tukey's post hoc tests also showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0297) between the types of cement used (subgroups G and R). Conclusion: Monolith zirconia crowns had better mean fracture resistance than bilayered zirconia crowns. Resin cement improved the fracture resistance compared to GIC. Monolith zirconia crowns showed bulk fracture while bilayered zirconia crowns showed chipping fracture. Clinical significance: Monolith zirconia crowns present a good prosthetic alternative overcoming the veneer chipping drawback of bilayered zirconia crowns. In addition, resin cement could increase the fracture resistance of zirconia crowns.

PDF Share
  1. Daou EE. The zirconia ceramic: Strengths and weaknesses. Open Dent J 2014;8(1):33–42. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601408010033.
  2. Saridag S, Tak O, Alniacik G. Basic properties and types of zirconia: An overview. World World J Stomatol 2013;2(3):40–47. DOI: 10.5321/wjs.v2.i3.40.
  3. Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel zirconia materials in dentistry. J Dent Res 2018;97(2):140–147. DOI: 10.1177/0022034517737483.
  4. Zhang Y, Lee JJW, Srikanth R, et al. Edge chipping and flexural resistance of monolithic ceramics. Dent Mater 2013;29(12):1201–1208. DOI: 10.1016/
  5. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S. Evaluation of zirconium-oxide-based ceramic single-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) generated with two CAD/CAM systems compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal single-unit posterior FDPs: A 5-year clinical prospective study. J Prosthodont 2012;21(4):265–269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00825.x.
  6. Lin WS, Ercoli C, Feng C, et al. The effect of core material, veneering porcelain, and fabrication technique on the biaxial flexural strength and weibull analysis of selected dental ceramics. J Prosthodon 2012;21(5):353–362. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00845.x.
  7. Choi YS, Kim SH, Lee JB, et al. In vitro evaluation of fracture strength of zirconia restoration veneered with various ceramic materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(3):162–169. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.162.
  8. Dhima M, Assad DA, Volz JE, et al. Evaluation of fracture resistance in aqueous environment of four restorative systems for posterior applications. Part 1. J Prosthodont 2013;22(4):256–260. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00948.x.
  9. Flinn BD, Degroot DA, Mancl LA, et al. Accelerated aging characteristics of three yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline dental materials. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108(4):223–230. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60166-8.
  10. Alghazzawi TF, Lemons J, Liu PR, et al. Influence of low-temperature environmental exposure on the mechanical properties and structural stability of dental zirconia. J Prosthodont 2012;21(5):363–369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00838.x.
  11. Sanon C, Chevalier J, Douillard T, et al. Low temperature degradation and reliability of one-piece ceramic oral implants with a porous surface. Dent Mater 2013;29(4):389–397. DOI: 10.1016/
  12. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24(3):299–307. DOI: 10.1016/
  13. Chevalier J, Gremillard L, Virkar AV, et al. The tetragonal–monoclinic transformation in zirconia: Lessons learned and future trends. J Am Ceram 2009;92(9):1901–1920. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03278.x.
  14. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, et al. Three generations of zirconia: From veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence Int 2017;48(5):369–380. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38057.
  15. Jansen JU, Lümkemann N, Letz I, et al. Impact of high-speed sintering on translucency, phase content, grain sizes, and flexural strength of 3Y-TZP and 4Y-TZP zirconia materials. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(4):396–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.005.
  16. Lawson NC, Maharishi A. Strength and translucency of zirconia after high-speed sintering. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32(2):219–225. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12524.
  17. Behr M, Füllerer J, Strasser T, et al. Are zirconias of today different? Dtsch Zahnärztl Z Int 2020;2:114–118. DOI: 10.3238/dzz-int.2020.0114–0118.
  18. Kitayama S, Nikaido T, Takahashi R, et al. Effect of primer treatment on bonding of resin cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 2010;26(5):426–432. DOI: 10.1016/
  19. Attia A. Bond strength of three luting agents to zirconia ceramic: Influence of surface treatment and thermocycling. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(4):388–395. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011005000015.
  20. Lüthy H, Loeffel O, Hammerle CHF. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 2006;22(2):195–200. DOI: 10.1016/
  21. Sadid–Zadeh R, Sahraoui H, Lawson B, et al. Assessment of tooth preparations submitted to dental laboratories for fabrication of monolithic zirconia crowns. Dent J (Basel) 2021;9(10):112. DOI: 10.3390/dj9100112.
  22. Aboushelib MN, Mirmohamadi H, Matinlinna JP, et al. Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials. Part II: Focusing on chemical interactions. Dent Mater 2009;25(8):989–993. DOI: 10.1016/
  23. Sethi S, Kakade D, Jambhekar S, et al. An in vitro investigation to compare the surface roughness of auto glazed, reglazed and chair side polished surfaces of Ivoclar and Vita feldspathic porcelain. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(4):478–485. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0223-9.
  24. Inokoshi M, de Munck J, Minakuchi S, et al. Meta-analysis of bonding effectiveness to zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2014;93(4):329–334. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514524228.
  25. Joukhadar C, Osman E, Rayyan M, et al. Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study). J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(3):e264–e270. DOI: 10.4317/jced.56242.
  26. Rayyan MM, Abdallah J, Segaan LG, et al. Static and fatigue loading of veneered implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont 2020;29(8):679–685. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13173.
  27. Telyani S, Osman E, Rayyan M, et al. Spectrophotometric analysis and fracture resistance of super and ultra translucency zirconia versus lithium disilicaet glass ceramics. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(2):1647–1652. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.78454.
  28. Marchack BW, Sato S, Marchack CB, et al. Complete and partial contour zirconia designs for crowns and fixed dental prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106(3):145–152. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60112-1.
  29. Cui X, Shen Z, Wang X. Esthetic appearances of anatomic contour zirconia crowns made by additive wet deposition and subtractive dry milling: A self-controlled clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(6):946–947. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.028.
  30. Subaşi MG, Demir N, Kara Ö, et al. Mechanical properties of zirconia after different surface treatments and repeated firings. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6(6):462–467. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.462.
  31. Rauch A, Schrock A, Schierz O, et al. Cementation of tooth-colored restorations: A survey among dentists in germany. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(6):567–571. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a45513.
  32. Özcan M, Bernasconi M. Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(1):7–26. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33525.
  33. Shokry M, Al-Zordk W, Ghazy M. Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):187. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02223-0.
  34. Maño EP, Algarra RM, Fawzy A, et al. In vitro bonding performance of modern self-adhesive resin cements and conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cements to prosthetic substrates. Appl Sci 2020;10(22):8157. DOI: 10.3390/app10228157.
  35. Saran R, Upadhya NP, Ginjupalli K, et al. Effect on physical and mechanical properties of conventional glass ionomer luting cements by incorporation of all-ceramic additives: An in vitro study. Int J Dent 2020;2020(1):8896225. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8896225.
  36. de Lima E, Meira JBC, Özcan M, et al. Chipping of veneering ceramics in zirconium dioxide fixed dental prosthesis. Curr Oral Health Rep 2015;2:169–173. DOI: 10.1007/s40496-015-0066-7.
  37. Lameira DP, Buarque e Silva WA, Andrade e Silva F, et al. Fracture strength of aged monolithic and bilayer zirconia-based crowns. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:418641. DOI: 10.1155/2015/418641.
  38. Tekin YH, Hayran Y. Fracture resistance and marginal fit of the zirconia crowns with varied occlusal thickness. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12(5):283–290. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.283.
  39. Zandinejad A, Revilla–León M, Methani MM, et al. The fracture resistance of additively manufactured monolithic zirconia vs. Bi-layered alumina toughened zirconia crowns when cemented to zirconia abutments. Evaluating the potential of 3d printing of ceramic crowns: An in vitro study. Dent J (Basel) 2021;9(10):115. DOI: 10.3390/dj9100115.
  40. Guazzato M, Proos K, Quach L, et al. Strength, reliability and mode of fracture of bilayered porcelain/zirconia (Y-TZP) dental ceramics. Biomaterials 2004;25(20):5045–5052. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.036.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.