The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( May, 2008 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative in vitro Study of the Load at Fracture of All-ceramic Crowns with Various Thicknesses of In-Ceram Core

Ilser Turkyilmaz, Suat Gokce, Emine Celik-Bagci

Citation Information : Turkyilmaz I, Gokce S, Celik-Bagci E. A Comparative in vitro Study of the Load at Fracture of All-ceramic Crowns with Various Thicknesses of In-Ceram Core. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (4):17-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-4-17

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of three different thicknesses of In-Ceram core on the load at fracture of all-ceramic crowns.

Methods and Materials

Thirty standardized crown-shaped nickel-chromium alloy dies were fabricated using a milling machine. Twenty dies were prepared with a 1 mm shoulder for Groups A and B. The only difference in the ten dies used for Group C was a smaller 0.5 mm lingual shoulder. The thicknesses of In-Ceram were 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm, and 0.75 mm for Groups A, B, and C. All all-ceramic crowns were fabricated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. After cementation of the crowns, their fracture resistance was tested with a universal testing machine. The load was directed to a point located 3 mm from the lingual aspect of the incisal edge at 30 degrees to the long axis of each specimen until catastrophic failure occurred.


The mean loads at fracture for Groups A, B, and C were 1117±388 N, 2083±385 N, and 1439±368 N, respectively. No statistically significant difference in load at fracture between Groups A and C was found (p>0.05). However, the differences were statistically significant between Groups A and B (p<0.001) and Groups B and C (p<0.001).


Under the guidelines of this study, increasing the thickness of the In-Ceram core increased the fracture resistance of the all-ceramic crowns.

Clinical Significance

The sufficient thickness of the In-Ceram core of all-ceramic crowns is an important factor in fracture resistance. Therefore, dental practitioners should be careful in patient selection; if the horizontal overlap of a tooth to be restored is too limited, then all-ceramic crowns may not be a feasible option.


Gokce S, Celik-Bagci E, Turkyilmaz I. A Comparative in vitro Study of the Load at Fracture of Allceramic Crowns with Various Thicknesses of In-Ceram Core. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:017-025.

PDF Share
  1. An in vitro study to investigate the load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with various thickness of occlusal veneer porcelain. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:54-58.
  2. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004;20:449-56.
  3. Fracture strength of 5 different all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:602-609.
  4. Mechanical properties of commercial high strength ceramic core materials. Dent Mater. 2004;20:207-12.
  5. A study on the fracture strength of implantsupported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15:9-13.
  6. Comparison of fracture strength of metal-ceramic crowns and three ceromer crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:170-175.
  7. Fracture strength of copy-milled and conventional In-ceram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28: 678-683.
  8. Restorative Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002, p.551-592.
  9. Flexure tests on dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont. 1996;9:434-439.
  10. Fracture load and marginal fit of shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 all-ceramic crowns after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:827-832.
  11. An in vitro study of the compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:154-160.
  12. Fracture surface characterization of clinically failed all-ceramic crowns. J Dent Res. 1994;73:1824-1832.
  13. Perpectives on strength. Dent Mater. 1995;11:103-110.
  14. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:329-338.
  15. Effects of preparation and luting system on all-ceramic computer-generated crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:333-339.
  16. Fracture load of composite resin and feldspathic allceramic CAD/CAM crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95:117-123.
  17. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns luted using two bonding methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:247-252.
  18. Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:561-569.
  19. A comparison of fracture stregth of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia ceramic crowns with varying core thickness, shapes and veneer ceramics. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:682-688.
  20. Fracture strength of two oxide ceramic crown systems after cyclic pre-loading and thermocycling. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:682-689.
  21. Crack initiation modes in bilayered alumina/porcelain disks as a function of core/veneer ratio and supporting substrate stiffness. J Dent Res. 2000;79:1398-1404.
  22. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997;10:478-484.
  23. Influence of firing cycles on the margin distortion of 3 all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93:346-355.
  24. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:462-467.
  25. Maximal bite force and its association with signs and symptoms of craniomandibular disorders in young Finnish non-patients. Acta Odontol Scand. 1995;53:254-258.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.