References

Steele JG, Wassell RW, Walls AWG. Changing patterns and the need for quality. Br Dent J. 2002; 192:144-148
Silva GR, Roscoe MG, Ribeiro CP, Mota ASd, Martins LRM, Soares CJ. Impact of rehabilitation with metal-ceramic restorations on oral health-related quality of life. Braz Dent J. 2012; 23:403-408
Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:83-96
Michalakis KX, Stratos A, Hirayama H, Kang K, Touloumi F, Oishi Y. Fracture resistance of metal ceramic restorations with two different margin designs after exposure to masticatory simulation. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102:172-178
Mizrahi B. The anterior all-ceramic crown: a rationale for the choice of ceramic and cement. Br Dent J. 2008; 205:251-255
Eliasson A, Arnelund C-F, Johansson A. A clinical evaluation of cobalt-chromium metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures and crowns: a three- to seven-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98:6-16
Kimmich M, Stappert CF. Intraoral treatment of veneering porcelain chipping of fixed dental restorations: a review and clinical application. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144:31-44
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:31-41
Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal–ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:86-96
Anusavice KJ. Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:102-111
Shadid RM, Sadaqah NR, Abu-Naba'a L, Al-Omari WM. Porcelain fracture of metal-ceramic tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations: a review. Open Journal of Stomatology (OJST). 2013; 3
Friedman M. A 15-year review of porcelain veneer failure – a clinician's observations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998; 19:625-628
Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT. Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86:526-531
Özcan M. Fracture reasons in ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30:265-269
Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR., 12th edn. St Louis, Missouri, USA: Saunders Elsevier Inc; 2013
Malhotra N, Acharya SR. Conservative approach for esthetic repair of fractured ceramic facing in ceramic-fused-to-metal crowns: a case series. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012; 33:E123-129
Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM., 13th edn. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier Inc; 2012
Steele J, Nohl F, Wassell R. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: occlusal considerations and articulator selection. Br Dent J. 2002; 192:377-387
Mizrahi B. The Dahl principle: creating space and improving the biomechanical prognosis of anterior crowns. Quintessence Int. 2006; 37:245-251
Torbjörner A, Fransson B. Biomechanical aspects of prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:135-141
Karl M, Fischer H, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. Structural changes in ceramic veneered three-unit implant-supported restorations as a consequence of static and dynamic loading. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:464-470
Johansson A, Omar R, Carlsson GE. Bruxism and prosthetic treatment: a critical review. J Prosthodont Res. 2011; 55:127-136
Brägger U, Aeschlimann S, Bürgin W, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:26-34
Kukiattrakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011; 8:6-15
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J., 4th edn. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier Inc; 2006
Newsome P, Owen S. Improving your margins. Int Dent SA. 2009; 11:36-42
Boksman L. Optimizing occlusal results for crown and bridge prostheses. Dent Today. 2011; 20:154-157
Prakash P, D'Souza D, Kumar M, Viswambaran M. Effect of firing cycle and surface finishing on the sag resistance of long-span metal ceramic framework using base metal alloys – an in vitro study. Med J Armed Forces India. 2012; 68:145-150
Taskonak B, Griggs JA, Mecholsky JJ, Yan JH. Analysis of subcritical crack growth in dental ceramics using fracture mechanics and fractography. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:700-707
Kinsel RP, Lin D. Retrospective analysis of porcelain failures of metal ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures supported by 729 implants in 152 patients: patient-specific and implant-specific predictors of ceramic failure. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101:388-394
El-Sheikh AM, Hobkirk JA, Howell PG, Gilthorpe MS. Passive tactile sensibility in edentulous subjects treated with dental implants: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:26-32
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Brackett SE., 4th edn. Illinois, USA: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc; 2012
Özcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15:299-302
Bulbule N, Motwani BK. Comparative study of fracture resistance of porcelain in metal ceramic restorations by using different metal coping designs – an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8:ZC123-ZC127
Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: a review of literature. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8
Zhang Y, Griggs JA, Benham AW. Influence of powder/liquid mixing ratio on porosity and translucency of dental porcelains. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:128-135
Cheung K, Darvell B. Sintering of dental porcelain: effect of time and temperature on appearance and porosity. Dent Mater. 2002; 18:163-173
Deepak K, Ahila S, Muthukumar B, Vasanthkumar M. Comparative evaluation of effect of laser on shear bond strength of ceramic bonded with two base metal alloys: an in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2013; 24:610-615

Ceramic fracture in metal-ceramic restorations: the aetiology

From Volume 44, Issue 5, May 2017 | Pages 448-456

Authors

Ayesha Aslam

BDS, CHPE

PG Resident Prosthodontics, Army Medical College/Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Islamabad

Articles by Ayesha Aslam

Danish Azeem Khan

BDS

PG Resident Prosthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi

Articles by Danish Azeem Khan

Syed Hammad Hassan

BDS, FCPS, MSc Med Edu

Assistant Professor, Army Medical College/Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Islamabad

Articles by Syed Hammad Hassan

Bilal Ahmed

BDS, DDPH, MSc, MFDS

Res Associate Professor Department of Prosthodontics National University of Science & Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Articles by Bilal Ahmed

Abstract

All dental restorations are liable to failure during function. Failure could be biologic, aesthetic, mechanical or a combination. Ceramic restorations in particular, including metal-ceramics, are prone to mechanical fracture, especially the fracture of veneering porcelain. Fracture of a metal-ceramic restoration jeopardizes function as well as aesthetics. It is equally onerous to manage for both patient and dentist. Optimal management of such cases requires a detailed knowledge of the aetiology behind this phenomenon. The current paper aims to highlight possible causative factors involved in the mechanical failures of metal-ceramic restorations.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Ceramic fracture in metal-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures is routinely encountered in dental clinics. Knowledge of the aetiology is required to diagnose and manage such cases accurately as well as to avoid these errors in future.

Article

Rehabilitation of teeth with crowns has increased greatly over the last three decades.1 Despite rapid advancements in the development of newer and stronger ceramic systems,2 metal-ceramic restorations still remain the ‘gold standard’ in prosthodontics since their introduction in the 1960s.3 Metal-ceramic systems combine the biomechanical advantages of metals with the aesthetics of ceramic materials,4 resulting in restorations with considerable clinical longevity.5 A survival rate of 97% for metal-ceramic restorations was reported by Eliasson et al6 after a period of ten years in clinical service.

All dental restorations are liable to failure during function. Failure may be biologic, aesthetic, mechanical or a combination. Ceramic restorations in particular, including metal-ceramics, are more prone to mechanical fracture (Figure 1), especially the fracture of veneering porcelain.7 A systematic review carried out by Goodacre et al8 revealed that fracture of veneering porcelain is a common complication associated with metal-ceramic prostheses. However, a review on the survival rate and complications of metal-ceramic restorations reported a mean chipping rate of 2.9% after a 5-year observation period.9 Such paradoxes in survival rate values exist because of a lack of detailed reporting systems for describing fractures of ceramic-based restorations.10

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available