Statement of problem
Translucent zirconias have been developed with better esthetics than high-strength zirconias by reducing opacity. However, studies on their translucency and strength are sparse.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the relationship between translucency and biaxial flexural strength of recently developed high-translucency zirconia, high-strength zirconia, and lithium disilicate ceramics.
Material and methods
Disks (n=12) were fabricated for 5 ceramic materials: high-strength zirconia (BruxZir 16 shaded), translucent zirconia (BruxZir Anterior shaded, Katana UTML, Katana STML), and lithium disilicate (IPS e.max, Press HT, and LT). A standard tessellation language (STL) file was designed, and the specimen milled, finished, and glazed according to manufacturer's instructions for each material. The translucency parameter was calculated against black and white backgrounds and white and stump shade with ND4 background by using a spectrophotometer. Biaxial flexural strength was calculated by using the 3-ball test. The load was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min with a 49-N load cell until failure occurred. Translucency parameter and biaxial flexural strength data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A Tukey honest significant difference multiple comparison test was used to determine significant differences (α=.05).
The IPS e.max HT was more translucent against both backgrounds (32.85 for black/white and 15.34 for white/stump), while BruxZir 16 was the least translucent (19.78 for B/W and 8.83 for W/S). All groups tested differed in translucency (P<.001) except for BruxZir Anterior and Katana STML, which were not significantly different (P=.052). For biaxial flexural strength, BruxZir 16 had the highest strength (995.44 MPa) and e.max HT, the lowest (186.75 MPa). No significant differences were found between BruxZir anterior and Katana STML, Katana UTML and IPS e.max LT, or IPS e.max LT and IPS e.max HT (P>.05). Translucency parameter values using both backgrounds were strongly correlated (r=0.99). However, biaxial flexural strength values were inversely related to translucency parameter values when using black/white and white/stump shade but with high correlation (r=-0.777 and -0.756 respectively).
Lithium disilicate was the most translucent and yet the weakest material, whereas high-strength zirconia was the most opaque ceramic and the strongest. Katana UTML had the highest translucency but was weakest among translucent and high-strength zirconia materials. Overall, translucency was negatively correlated with biaxial flexural strength.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Translucency of esthetic dental restorative cad/cam materials and composite resins with respect to thickness and surface roughness.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 534-540
- Translucency of zirconia copings made with different CAD/CAM systems.J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 104: 6-12
- Translucency of dental ceramics with different thicknesses.J J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 14-20
- Color and translucency of zirconia ceramics, human dentine and bovine dentine.J Dent. 2012; 40: 34-40
- Factors affecting the translucency of monolithic zirconia ceramics: a review from materials science perspective.Dent Mater J. 2020; 39: 1-8
- From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations.Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 83-96
- Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice.Aust Dent J. 2011; 56: 84-96
- Ceramics overview: classification by microstructure and processing methods.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010; 31: 682-684
- Lithium disilicate: the restorative material of multiple options.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010; 31: 716-725
- State of the art of zirconia for dental applications.Dent Mater. 2008; 24: 299-307
- An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications.J Dent. 2007; 35: 819-826
- 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: 154-164
- Zirconia: material background and clinical application.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009; 31: 710-715
- Dental ceramics: a current review.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014; 35: 161-166
- Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent.Dent Mater. 2014; 30: 1195-1203
- Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: core materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 4-9
- Zirconia versus metal: a preliminary comparative analysis of ceramic veneer behavior.Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 294-300
- Light scattering by residual pores in transparent zirconia ceramics.J Ceram Soc Jpn. 2011; 119: 133-135
- Transparent tetragonal yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics: influence of scattering caused by birefringence.J Am Ceram Soc. 2011; 94: 1850-1858
- Characterization of three commercial Y-TZP ceramics produced for their high-translucency, high-strength and high-surface area.Ceram Internat. 2016; 42: 1077-1085
- Effect of hydrothermal degradation on three types of zirconias for dental application.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1377-1384
- Effect of hydrothermal treatment on light transmission of translucent zirconias.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 422-429
- Translucency of dental porcelains.J Dent Res. 1980; 59: 70-75
- The effect of a coupling medium on color and translucency of CAD–CAM ceramics.J Dent. 2013; 41: 18-23
- Flexural strength and fracture toughness of dental core ceramics.J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98: 120-128
- Comparative mechanical property characterization of 3 all-ceramic core materials.Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 534-541
- Influence of test method on failure stress of brittle dental materials.J Dent Res. 1990; 69: 1791-1799
- ISO 6872. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9693-1. Dentistry compatibility testing. Part 1: Metal-ceramic systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2012
- Parameters that affect the color of direct restorative resins.J Dent Res. 1978; 57: 876-880
- Translucency parameter of colorants for maxillofacial prostheses.Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8: 79-86
- Color measurement in dentistry.J Dent. 2009; 37: 2-6
- A comparative evaluation of the translucency of zirconias and lithium disilicate for monolithic restorations.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 257-263
- New high-translucent cubic-phase-containing zirconia: clinical and laboratory considerations and the effect of air abrasion on strength.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017; 38: e13-e16
- Effect of surface acid etching on the biaxial flexural strength of two hot-pressed glass ceramics.J Prosthodont. 2008; 17: 415-419
- The effects of repeated heat-pressing on properties of pressable glass-ceramics.J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36: 132-141
- Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 374-380
- Biaxial flexural strength and translucent characteristics of dental lithium disilicate glass ceramics with different translucencies.J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 71-77
- Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials.J Dent. 2004; 32: 91-99
- Mechanical reliability, fatigue strength and survival analysis of new polycrystalline translucent zirconia ceramics for monolithic restorations.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018; 85: 57-65
- Aging resistance, mechanical properties and translucency of different yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics for monolithic dental crown applications.Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 879-890
Published online: July 22, 2021
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.