Structural reliability of alumina-, feldspar-, leucite-, mica- and zirconia-based ceramics.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that industrially manufactured ceramic materials, such as Cerec Mark II and Zirconia-TZP, have a smaller range of fracture strength variation and therefore greater structural reliability than laboratory-processed dental ceramic materials.


METHODS
Thirty bar specimens per material were prepared and tested. The four-point bend test was used to determine the flexure strength of all ceramic materials. The fracture stress values were analyzed by Weibull analysis to determine the Weibull modulus values (m) and the 1 and 5% probabilities of failure.


RESULTS
The mean strength and standard deviation values for these ceramics are as follows: (MPa+/-SD) were: Cerec Mark II, 86.3+/-4.3; Dicor, 70.3+/-12.2; In-Ceram Alumina, 429. 3+/-87.2; IPS Empress, 83.9+/-11.3; Vitadur Alpha Core, 131.0+/-9.5; Vitadur Alpha Dentin, 60.7+/-6.8; Vita VMK 68, 82.7+/-10.0; and Zirconia-TZP, 913.0+/-50.2. There was no statistically significant difference among the flexure strength of Cerec Mark II, Dicor, IPS Empress, Vitadur Alpha Dentin, and Vita VMK 68 ceramics (p>0.05). The highest Weibull moduli were associated with Cerec Mark II and Zirconia-TZP ceramics (23.6 and 18.4). Dicor glass-ceramic and In-Ceram Alumina had the lowest m values (5.5 and 5.7), whereas intermediate values were observed for IPS-Empress, Vita VMK 68, Vitadur Alpha Dentin and Vitadur Alpha Core ceramics (8.6, 8.9, 10.0 and 13.0, respectively).


CONCLUSIONS
Except for In-Ceram Alumina, Vitadur Alpha and Zirconia-TZP core ceramics, most of the investigated ceramic materials fabricated under the condition of a dental laboratory were not stronger or more structurally reliable than Vita VMK 68 veneering porcelain. Only Cerec Mark II and Zirconia-TZP specimens, which were prepared from an industrially optimized ceramic material, exhibited m values greater than 18. Hence, we conclude that industrially prepared ceramics are more structurally reliable materials for dental applications although CAD-CAM procedures may induce surface and subsurface flaws that may adversely affect this property.
Tinschert
J
J
Subdepartment for Dental Materials Science and Department of Prosthodontics, University of Aachen, Paulwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. jtinschert@online.de
Zwez
D
D
Marx
R
R
Anusavice
K J
KJ
D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry*; D000538:Aluminum Silicates / Q000737:chemistry*; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry*; D055598:Chemical Phenomena; D002627:Chemistry, Physical; D017076:Computer-Aided Design; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000737:chemistry*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D004548:Elasticity; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D018583:Pliability; D017680:Potassium Compounds / Q000737:chemistry*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D015040:Zirconium / Q000737:chemistry*
D000538:Aluminum Silicates; D003722:Dental Alloys; C047475:Dicor ceramic; C075815:IPS-Empress ceramic; D017680:Potassium Compounds; D003776:Dental Porcelain; C016447:feldspar; C078519:leucite; C074543:Cerec; C070870:In-Ceram; C058236:Vitadur N; C047040:Vita VMK 68; D015040:Zirconium; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; C028541:zirconium oxide; C011934:mica