Advertisement

Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 197–200 | Cite as

Monolithic Zirconia for Prosthetic Reconstructions: Advantages and Limitations

  • Lucas Hian da Silva
  • Erick de Lima
  • Miriam Hochman
  • Mutlu ÖzcanEmail author
  • Paulo Francisco Cesar
Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section Editor)
  • 141 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Due to frequent clinical reports on chipping of the veneering ceramic applied on zirconia frameworks, non-veneered monolithic zirconia has been proposed in an attempt to improve the lifetime of metal-free fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). This review highlights the effects of microstructure and chemical composition on optical properties and mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia that may be detrimental on the longevity of FDPs and the antagonist dentition.

Recent Findings

The reviewed studies indicated that the lack of veneering ceramic in monolithic solutions yields to less favourable optical outcome and decreased mechanical stability. Efforts are being made to improve translucency of monolithic zirconia through modifying the grain size, increasing cubic phase, and decreasing alumina content, final density and level of impurities.

Summary

There appears room for improvement in the microstructure of monolithic zirconia ceramics to achieve better optical results and low antagonist wear, without jeopardizing its mechanical properties.

Keywords

Monolithic zirconia Zirconia Y-TZP 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Meyenberg KH, Lüthy H, Schärer P. Zirconia posts: a new all-ceramic concept for nonvital abutment teeth. J Esthet Restor Dent. 1995;7(2):73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swain MV. Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(5):1668–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tholey MJ, Swain MV, Thiel N. Thermal gradients and residual stresses in veneered Y-TZP frameworks. Dent Mater. 2011;27(11):1102–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guazzato M, Walton TR, Franklin W, et al. Influence of thickness and cooling rate on development of spontaneous cracks in porcelain/zirconia structures. Aust Dent J. 2010;55(3):306–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rues S, Kroger E, Muller D, et al. Effect of firing protocols on cohesive failure of all-ceramic crowns. J Dent. 2010;38(12):987–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meirelles PD, Spigolon YO, Borba M, et al. Leucite and cooling rate effect on porcelain-zirconia mechanical behavior. Dent Mater. 2016;32(12):e382–e88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen GJ. The all-ceramic restoration dilemma: where are we? J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(6):668–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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):145–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rinke S, Fischer C. Range of indications for translucent zirconia modifications: clinical and technical aspects. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(8):557–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holt LR, Boksman L. Monolithic zirconia: minimizing adjustments. Dent Today. 2012;31(12):78. 80-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang H, Li Z, Kim B-N, et al. Effect of alumina dopant on transparency of tetragonal zirconia. J Nanomat. 2012;2012:5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, et al. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: core materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(1):4–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Srdić VV, Winterer M, Hahn H. Sintering behavior of nanocrystalline zirconia doped with alumina prepared by chemical vapor synthesis. J Am Ceramic Soc. 2000;83(8):1853–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomaterials. 2006;27(4):535–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fathy SM, El-Fallal AA, El-Negoly SA, et al. Translucency of monolithic and core zirconia after hydrothermal aging. Acta Biomater Odont Scand. 2015;1(2–4):86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casolco SR, Xu J, Garay JE. Transparent/translucent polycrystalline nanostructured yttria stabilized zirconia with varying colors. Scr Mater. 2008;58(6):516–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klimke J, Trunec M, Krell A. Transparent tetragonal yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics: influence of scattering caused by birefringence. J Am Ceram Soc. 2011;94(6):1850–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1195–203. This review provides all possible methods available for developing tetragonal yttria-stabilized zirconia with improved translucency, highlighting the birefringence phenomenon of tetragonal zirconia as one of the mechanisms to improve translucency CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jiang L, Liao Y, Wan Q, et al. Effects of sintering temperature and particle size on the translucency of zirconium dioxide dental ceramic. J Mater Sci: Mater in Med. 2011;22(11):2429–35.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng J, Agrawal D, Zhang Y, et al. Microwave sintering of transparent alumina. Mater Lett. 2002;56(4):587–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papanagiotou HP, Morgano SM, Giordano RA, et al. In vitro evaluation of low-temperature aging effects and finishing procedures on the flexural strength and structural stability of Y-TZP dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(3):154–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matsuzaki F, Sekine H, Honma S, et al. Translucency and flexural strength of monolithic translucent zirconia and porcelain-layered zirconia. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(6):910–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Anselmi-Tamburini U, Woolman JN, Munir ZA. Transparent nanometric cubic and tetragonal zirconia obtained by high-pressure pulsed electric current sintering. Adv Functional Mater. 2007;17(16):3267–73. This study describes a sintering process to obtain translucent zirconia where grain size and its relation to translucency is eloborated CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Denry I, Kelly J. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res. 2014;93(12):1235–42. This review gives an overview on emerging ceramics with an emphasis on specific challenges associated with monolithic zirconia ceramics CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chevalier J, Deville S, Münch E, et al. Critical effect of cubic phase on aging in 3 mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics for hip replacement prosthesis. Biomaterials. 2004;25(24):5539–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature. 1975;258(5537):703–4. This is a classical article describing the importance of phase transformation and its effects on mechanical properties of zirconia CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tong H, Tanaka CB, Kaizer MR, et al. Characterization of three commercial Y-TZP ceramics produced for their high-translucency, high-strength and high-surface area. Ceram Int. 2016;42(1 Pt B):1077–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res. 1991;70(3):221–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, et al. Wear performance of dental ceramics after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behavior Biomed Mater. 2012;10:13–22. This article was one of the first that showed monolithic zirconia could wear antagonist dentition when not polished adequately CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Haj Husain N, Camilleri J, Özcan M. Effect of polishing instruments and polishing regimens on surface topography and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia: an evaluation with XPS and XRD analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;64:104–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sadid-Zadeh R, Liu PR, Aponte-Wesson R, et al. Maxillary cement retained implant supported monolithic zirconia prosthesis in a full mouth rehabilitation: a clinical report. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013;5(2):209–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Limmer B, Sanders AE, Reside G, et al. Complications and patient-centered outcomes with an implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: 1 year results. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(4):267–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moscovitch M. Consecutive case series of monolithic and minimally veneered zirconia restorations on teeth and implants: up to 68 months. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015;35(3):315–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucas Hian da Silva
    • 1
  • Erick de Lima
    • 2
  • Miriam Hochman
    • 1
  • Mutlu Özcan
    • 3
    Email author
  • Paulo Francisco Cesar
    • 2
  1. 1.School of DentistryUniversity Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Biomaterials and Oral Biology, School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Division of Dental Materials, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials ScienceUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations