The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( March, 2009 ) > List of Articles


Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns using Different Luting Cements: An in vitro Study

Ahed M. Al-Wahadni, David L. Hussey, Nicholas Grey, Muhanad M. Hatamleh

Citation Information : Al-Wahadni AM, Hussey DL, Grey N, Hatamleh MM. Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns using Different Luting Cements: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10 (2):51-58.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-10-2-51

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-10-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of two types of ceramic crowns cemented with two different cements.

Methods and Materials

Forty premolar crowns were fabricated using lithium-disilicate (IPS Empress-2) and glass-infiltrated aluminium-oxide (In-Ceram) ceramic systems. The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10) with Group 1 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 2 (In-Ceram) cemented with glass ionomer cement. Group 3 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 4 (In-Ceram) were cemented with resin cement. Crowns were tested in a universal testing machine at a compressive-load speed of 10 mm/min. Fracture modes were grouped into five categories. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to detect statistical significances (p<0.05).


The mean (SD) fracture resistance (Newtons) for Groups 1 to 4 were: 245.35 (82.69), 390.48 (67.03), 269.69 (10.33), and 418.36 (26.24). The cement type had no statistical significant effect (p>0.05) on fracture resistance within each ceramic system tested. In-Ceram crowns cemented with either glass ionomer or resin cements exhibited a statistically significantly higher fracture-resistance than IPS Empress-2 crowns (p<0.05). Minimal fracture in the test crowns was the common mode exhibited.


Fracture resistance of IPS Empress-2 and In-Ceram crowns was not affected by the type of cement used for luting.

Clinical Significance

Both In-Ceram and IPS Empress-2 crowns can be successfully luted with the cements tested with In-Ceram exhibiting higher fracture resistance than IPS Empress-2.


Al-Wahadni AM, Hussey DL, Grey N, Hatamleh MM. Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns using Different Luting Cements: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 March; (10)2:051-058.

PDF Share
  1. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:89-96.
  2. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns (Dicor) in general practice. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:277-84.
  3. In-Ceram failure behavior and core-veneer interface quality as influenced by residual infiltration glass. J Prosthodont 1995; 4:237-42.
  4. Four year clinical study of glass-infiltrated, sintered alumina crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23:147-51.
  5. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86:511-9.
  6. Flexural strength optimisation of a leucite reinforced glass ceramic. Dent Mater 2001; 17:21-33.
  7. A comparison of the microstructure and properties of the IPS Empress®2 and the IPS Empress® glass-ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53:297-303.
  8. Short-term results of IPS-Empress full-porcelain crowns. J Prosthodont 1997; 6:20-30.
  9. Clinical examination of leucitereinforced glass-ceramic crowns (Empress) in general practice: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12:122-8.
  10. Five-year clinical evaluation of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:450-6.
  11. A long-term retrospective and clinical follow-up study of In-Ceram Alumina FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16:150-6.
  12. Five-year evaluation of posterior all-ceramic three-unit (In-Ceram) FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14:379-84.
  13. An in vitro study of the compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89:154-60.
  14. Flexure tests on dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9:434-9.
  15. Two-year clinical evaluation of lithia-disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 2006; 22:1008-13.
  16. Survival rates of IPS empress 2 all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures: results of a 5-year prospective clinical study. Quintessence Int 2006; 37:253-9.
  17. Clinical long-term results of VITA In-Ceram Classic crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19:355-63.
  18. Tensile bond strength of resin luting cement to glass infiltrated porous aluminium oxide cores (In-Ceram). Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1995; 3:199-202.
  19. Shear bond strength of resin luting cement to glassinfiltrated porous aluminum oxide cores. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83:210-5.
  20. Effect of ceramic surface treatments on the bond of four resin luting agents to a ceramic material. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79:508-13.
  21. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on the shear bond strengths of two resin luting agents to all-ceramic materials. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30:758-64.
  22. Dental luting agents: a review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 80:280-301.
  23. Fracture surface characterization of clinically failed all-ceramic crowns. J Dent Res 1994; 73:1824-32.
  24. Fracture-surface analysis of dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:536-41.
  25. Fracture surface analysis of dental ceramics: clinically failed restorations. Int J Prosthodont 1990; 3:430-40.
  26. Tensile stress in glass-ceramic crowns: effect of flaws and cement voids. Int J Prosthodont 1992; 5:351-8.
  27. Comparison of the fracture strengths of metal-ceramic crowns and three ceromer crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88:170-175.
  28. Evaluation of Load at Fracture of Procera AllCeram Copings Using Different Luting Cements. J Prosthodont 2007; 17:120-124.
  29. In vitro fracture strength of teeth restored with different all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92:491-5.
  30. Resistance to fracture of three all-ceramic systems. J Esthet Dent 1998; 10:60-6.
  31. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with dentin-bonded crowns. Quintessence Int 1994; 25:335-40.
  32. Die IPS Empress®-Technik---Ein neues Verfahren zur Herstellung von vollkeramischen Kronen, Inlays und Facetten. Quintessenz Zahntech 1990; 16:966-978.
  33. The effect of luting media on the fracture rsistance of a flame sprayed all-ceramic crown. J Dent 2001; 29:539-544.
  34. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations after exposure to the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33:380-6.
  35. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with dentin-bonded crowns constructed in a leucitereinforced ceramic. Dent Mater 1999; 15:359-362.
  36. Thin-wall ceramic CAD/CAM crown copings: strength and fracture pattern. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33:520-8.
  37. Resistance to fracture of two allceramic crown materials following endodontic access. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95:33-41.
  38. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:652-61.
  39. A comparison of the mechanical behavior of posterior teeth with amalgam and composite MOD restorations. J Dent 2001; 29:63-73.
  40. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns luted using two bonding methods. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91:247-52.
  41. Crack initiation modes in bilayered alumina/porcelain disks as a function of core/veneer thickness ratio and supporting substrate stiffness. J Dent Res 2000; 79:1398-1404.
  42. Resistance to fracture of metal ceramic and allceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:149-54.
  43. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:329-38.
  44. Influence of different adhesive resin cements on the fracture strength of aluminum oxide ceramic posterior crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92:359-64.
  45. In vitro study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load of all-ceramic crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and other luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:699-707.
  46. Resin-ceramic bonding:a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89:268-274.
  47. Mechanical properties of commercial high strength ceramic core materials. Dent Mater 2004; 20:207-12.
  48. Compressive strength of two modern all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1992; 5:409-14.
  49. The influence of different cementation modes on the fracture resistance of feldspathic ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10:169-177.
  50. A novel bite force recorder and maximal isometric bite force values for healthy young adults. Scand J Dent Res 1993; 101:171-5.
  51. Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridges of cross-arch extension. I. Bilateral end abutments. J Oral Rehabil 1986; 13:57-71.
  52. Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46:443-9.
  53. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6:462-7.
  54. 3-D Finite Element Analysis of all-ceramic poterior crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30:818-822.
  55. Investigation of occlusal force on lower first molar in function. Journal of Stomatological Society Japan 1994; 61:250.
  56. Bite force and dentofacial morphology in men with severe dental attrition. Scand J Dent Res 1994; 102:92-6.
  57. In vitro fracture force and marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns fixed on natural and artificial teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13:387-91.
  58. Weibull analysis and flexural strength of hot-pressed core and veneered ceramic structures. Dent Mater 2003; 19:662-9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.