Effect of Various Veneering Techniques on Mechanical

Strength of Computer-Controlled Zirconia Framework

Designs
Burcu Kanat, DDS, PhD,1 Erhan M. Çömlekoğlu, DDS, PhD,1 Mine Dündar-Çömlekoğlu, DDS, PhD,1
Bilge Hakan Sen, DDS, PhD,2 Mutlu Özcan, DDS, DMD, PhD,3 & Mehmet Ali Güngör, DDS, PhD1
1
Department of Prosthodontics, Ege University, School of Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey
2
Department of Endodontics, Izmir Katip Çelebi University, School of Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey
3
University of Zurich, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental
Materials Science, Zurich, Switzerland

Keywords
CAD/CAM; file splitting; fracture resistance;
flexural strength; shear bond strength; finite
element analysis.
Correspondence
Burcu Kanat, Ege University School of
Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics,
Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
E-mail: burcukanat@hotmail.com
This research was supported in part by the
Ege University, Scientific Research Project
Department (Project no. 2011-DİŞ-006).
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
Accepted September 3, 2013
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12130
Abstract
Purpose: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the fracture resistance (FR),
flexural strength (FS), and shear bond strength (SBS) of zirconia framework material
veneered with different methods and to assess the stress distributions using finite
element analysis (FEA).
Materials and Methods: Zirconia frameworks fabricated in the forms of crowns for
FR, bars for FS, and disks for SBS (N = 90, n = 10) were veneered with either (a)
file splitting (CAD-on) (CD), (b) layering (L), or (c) overpressing (P) methods. For
crown specimens, stainless steel dies (N = 30; 1 mm chamfer) were scanned using the
labside contrast spray. A bilayered design was produced for CD, whereas a reduced
design (1 mm) was used for L and P to support the veneer by computer-aided design
and manufacturing. For bar (1.5 × 5 × 25 mm3 ) and disk (2.5 mm diameter, 2.5 mm
height) specimens, zirconia blocks were sectioned under water cooling with a low-
speed diamond saw and sintered. To prepare the suprastructures in the appropriate
shapes for the three mechanical tests, nano-fluorapatite ceramic was layered and fired
for L, fluorapatite-ceramic was pressed for P, and the milled lithium-disilicate ceramics
were fused with zirconia by a thixotropic glass ceramic for CD and then sintered for
crystallization of veneering ceramic. Crowns were then cemented to the metal dies.
All specimens were stored at 37◦ C, 100% humidity for 48 hours. Mechanical tests
were performed, and data were statistically analyzed (ANOVA, Tukey’s, α = 0.05).
Stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used to evaluate the
failure modes and surface structure. FEA modeling of the crowns was obtained.
Results: Mean FR values (N ± SD) of CD (4408 ± 608) and L (4323 ± 462) were
higher than P (2507 ± 594) (p < 0.05). Mean FS values (MPa ± SD) of CD (583 ±
63) and P (566 ± 54) were higher than L (428 ± 41) (p < 0.05). Mean SBS values
(MPa ± SD) of CD (49 ± 6) (p < 0.05) were higher than L (28 ± 5) and P (30 ±
8). For crown restorations, while cohesive failures within ceramic and zirconia were
seen in CD, cohesive failures within ceramic were found in both L and P. Results were
verified by FEA.
Conclusion: The file splitting technique showed higher bonding values in all me-
chanical tests, whereas a layering technique increased the FR when an anatomical
core design was employed. Clinical significance: File splitting (CAD-on) or layering
veneering ceramic on zirconia with a reduced framework design may reduce ceramic
chipping.

Presintered yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide blocks fabri- technology has been reported to provide homogenous zir-
cated to be milled with computer-aided design/computer- conia frameworks with no imperfections and/or porosities
aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems as a framework, that may lead to veneering ceramic delamination and clinical
have been increasingly used in esthetic dentistry.1 CAD/CAM failures.2,3

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 1
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
Different methods can be applied for veneering ceramic on
zirconia frameworks. In the traditional layering technique, the
mixed ceramic powder and its liquid are built on the sintered
zirconia core being larger than the final dimension to compen-
sate for the shrinkage of ceramic,4,5 whereas the overpressing
technique requires a final contour wax-up model on the sintered
zirconia framework to be invested under heat-pressed vacuum
with pressable ceramics.4 The subtractive type of file-splitting
method involves the fabrication of metal-ceramic restorations
through scanning by a digital probe for data aquisition.6 In
addition to these commonly used veneering techniques for zir-
conia, a new technique with the generic term “CAD-on” has
been introduced.3,7 In this technique, a presintered zirconia
framework and a high-strength ceramic veneering material are
designed and milled through CAD/CAM, and then sintered
zirconia and ceramic suprastructure are combined by a fusion
glass ceramic.3,7 Because of the thixotropic feature of the fu-
sion glass ceramic, mixing it with a special vibration device is
recommended by the manufacturer in the CAD-on technique.7
The capsule fabricated for single use is put onto a flat surface of
a special vibrator for 10 seconds to liquefy and be inserted into
superstructures for fusing procedures. The mixer allows the
material to be more homogenous by getting the components
together between the cores and suprastructures.8
Anatomical cusp support design of the CAD/CAM-
fabricated zirconia core with layering ceramic under mechan-
ical loading was reported to significantly reduce the chipping
failures of zirconia-supported crowns,9 which has been at-
tributed to optimal preservation of the uniform thickness of the
veneering ceramic through controlled CAD.9,10 By decreasing
the chipping of the veneering ceramic, removal and renewal
of the restorations can be prevented clinically. Also, by this
route, time and cost for both the patient and the dentist, as well
as excessive material consumption in the laboratory, can be
eliminated.7,11
Studies have emphasized the significance of form and thick-
nesses of the frameworks, veneering techniques, quality, and
homogeneity of the veneering ceramic as well as the phys-
ical properties such as the coefficient of thermal expansion
and elastic modulus of veneering ceramic and zirconia for
durable bond strengths between the two materials.10,11 Chip-
ping of the veneering ceramic in zirconia-supported restora-
tions has been reported to be one of the most common clinical
failure types12 with a 25% failure rate in a 3-year follow-up
randomized controlled clinical trial.13 Since the nature of the
clinical problem determines the systematic approach for me-
chanical/physical and/or clinical testing, the main question to
be answered when incorporating a novel veneering method on
a zirconia framework depends on the above-mentioned major
failure type: ceramic chipping. Such a failure can be identi-
fied by analytical and experimental procedures validated by
clinical studies. Recommended mechanical tests for mono-
lithic and/or bilayered specimens might be three- or four-point
flexure tests, biaxial flexure tests, or shear bond tests cou-
pled with finite element analysis (FEA) and/or fractographic
analyses.14 Thus, mechanical tests may allow for identification
of the failure initiation site of zirconia framework and veneer-
ing ceramic combinations fabricated with different layering
techniques.14,15
2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
Kanat et al
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of differ-
ent veneering procedures (layering, overpressing, and CAD-on)
on the fracture resistance (FR) of single molar crown restora-
tions with zirconia framework. Three complementary tests were
performed to interpret the findings: (a) the effect of flexural
strength (FS) of the veneering ceramic on the FR of the restora-
tion by performing a three-point bending test on the bar-shaped
specimens; (b) the effect of interfacial bonding on the FR of
the restoration by a shear bond strength (SBS) test using disk-
shaped specimens; and (c) finite element modeling of the crown
system to observe the location of the accumulated stresses by
simulating loading conditions. The null hypothesis of this study
was that the veneering technique would not affect the FR of the
bilayered zirconia crowns.
Materials and methods
Crown, bar, and disk-shaped specimens for FR, three-point
bending (FS), and SBS tests, respectively, were prepared with
CAD/CAM-fabricated (InLab; Sirona Dental Systems GmbH,
Bensheim, Germany) zirconia frameworks and veneered with
three techniques on the substructures as: layering (L), over-
pressing (P), and CAD-on (CD) (N = 90) (n = 10/subgroup).
The brands, manufacturers, chemical compositions, some me-
chanical properties, and batch numbers of the materials used in
this study are listed in Table 1.
Preparation of zirconia frameworks
For crown-shaped specimens, thirty stainless steel dies (n =
30) with a 1 mm standard circumferential chamfer, which had
a groove on the axial surface to prevent the rotation of the
restorations during the mechanical test, were scanned (InEos
Blue; Sirona Dental Systems) using a labside contrast spray
(IPS Contrast Spray Labside; Ivoclar Vivadent). Digital impres-
sions were obtained. The restoration form was chosen for the
mandibular left first molar in the CAD/CAM software (CEREC
3D, Sirona InLab V3.88; Sirona Dental Systems). Multilayered
design was performed for CD, whereas the reduced form with 1
mm was preferred for both L and P, producing a uniform veneer-
ing ceramic thickness and support for the cusps.16 The thickness
of the die spacer was selected as 10 μm, since the die material
was not a tooth substance, but made of metal. The adaptation of
the framework to the metal die was aimed to decrease the rota-
tion of the substructure during fracture tests.3 Circumferential
margin and insertion path of the metal dies were determined as
the groove was positioned buccally. The zirconia frameworks
were milled (InLab MC XL; Sirona Dental Systems) out of
presintered zirconia blocks (IPS e.max ZirCAD) with 20% to
25% enlarged volume to compensate for shrinkage after the
sintering process. Then, the frameworks were sintered (InFire
HTC speed; Sirona Dental Systems), and their fit to the dies
was controlled.
Bar- (length: 25 mm, width: 5 mm, height: 1.5 mm) and
square- (4 × 4 mm2 ) shaped specimens (n = 30/per group),
which would be used in three-point bending and SBS tests,
respectively, were sectioned in three axes under water cool-
ing using a low-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000; Buehler
Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL) from presintered yttrium-stabilized
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kanat et al Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia

Table 1 Materials used

Elastic Coefficient of Flexural

Chemical modulus thermal expansion strength Batch
Brand Manufacturer composition (%) [GPa] (CTE)[10−6 /K] [MPa] number

IPS e.max ZirCAD Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, ZrO2 (87–95) Y2 O3 (4–6) HfO2 (1–5) 210 10.8 900–1200 N75038
Liechtenstein Al2 O3 (0–1)
IPS e.max Ceram Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, SiO2 (60–65), Al2 O3 (9–11), K2 O 65 9.5 90 R23691
Liechtenstein (7–8), Na2 O (7–8), ZnO2 (2–3),
CaO, P2 O5 , and F (2,5–7,5)
IPS e.max ZirPress Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, SiO2 (57–62), Na2 O (6–8), K2 O 65 9.9 110 N54798
Liechtenstein (2–4), CaO (2–4), Al2 O3 (12–16),
ZrO2 (1,5–2,5), P2 O5 (1–2), and F
(0,5–1)
IPS e.max CAD Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, SiO2 (57–80), Li2 O (11–19), K2 O 95 10.2 360 P11325
Liechtenstein (0–13), P2 O5 (0–11), ZrO2 (0–8),
ZnO (0–8), Other and coloring
oxides (0–12)
IPS e.max CAD Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Oxides, water, butandiol, and 65 9.2–9.5 160 P77677
Crystall/Connect Liechtenstein chloride
RelyX luting 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany Sılane-treated glass (> 98), 9XC-9WU
cement potassıum persulfate (<0.2)
IPS e.max Ceram Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Ceramic powder and pigments R36248
Glaze Liechtenstein (60–70), glycole and glycerin
(30–40)

zirconia blocks (IPS e.max ZirCAD) considering the 20% to
25% sintering shrinkage of the zirconia and thickness of the
saw. Sinterization process was conducted in a special oven (In-
Fire HTC speed).
Preparation of suprastructures
For crown-shaped specimens in the CD group, the veneering
restorations previously designed by the software according to
the geometry of the framework were processed in the milling
unit (InLab MC XL) from lithium disilicate glass-ceramic
blocks (IPS e.max CAD C14, Ivoclar Vivadent). After the
adaptation of the sintered zirconia frameworks and veneering
ceramics were controlled, they were fused to each other by
a specially developed thixotropic glass-ceramic (IPS e.max
CAD Crystall/Connect; Ivoclar Vivadent) that turns into
liquid when vibrated (Ivomix; Ivoclar Vivadent). Fused mate-
rials were then sintered in the furnace (Programat P300; Ivoclar
Vivadent), and the crystalline intermediate (metasilicate) stage
of the ceramic was converted into disilicate phase after crystal-
lization firing (Table 2). For L and P veneering techniques, an in-
termediate liner layer (ZirLiner; Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied
on the anatomical zirconia frameworks and fired (Programat
P300) (n = 10) (Table 2). In the L group, veneering ceramic (IPS
e.max Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent) was layered, whereas in the
P group, modeling wax for pressable ceramics (FC Modelling
Wax; Bego, Bremen, Germany), which burns without residue,
was combined with the framework using a poly(vinyl siloxane)
impression mold (Affinis; Coltene Whaledent, Altstätten,
Switzerland). This was recorded from the milled veneering
ceramic prototype standardized by the CAD-on technique.
This mold behaved as patrix and matrix components consisting
of the pressable wax filling the socket and the hole for insertion
of the framework to join the two parts together. In the L group
the layered veneering ceramic was fired according to the manu-
facturer’s instructions (Programat P300) (Table 2), and optimal
and similar crown dimensions were obtained after grinding or
corrective firing where necessary (n = 10). In the P group, the
zirconia frameworks with the wax superstructure were invested
in a special investing material (IPS PressVEST; Ivoclar Vi-
vadent). After the wax (FC Modelling Wax) was burnt out, the
pressing process was carried out (Programat EP 3000) (Table 2)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions using a pressable
ceramic (IPS e.max ZirPress) (n = 10). After divesting,
the sprues were cut using a diamond disk and burs (Acurata,
Thurmansbang, Germany), and the remnants of the investment
material were cleaned using an airborne-particle-abrasion
device (Renfert, Hilzingen, Germany) with 50 μm Al2 O3
under 2 bar pressure.
For bar- and disk-shaped specimens in the CD group, lithium
disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD B40; Ivoclar Vi-
vadent) blocks were sectioned using a slow-speed diamond saw
(Isomet 1000) under water cooling in 25 × 5 × 1.5 mm3 and
2.5 mm diameter × 2.5 mm height dimensions, respectively.
Then, the sintered zirconia frameworks and glass-ceramic
suprastructures were fused to each other by a thixotropic glass-
ceramic (IPS e.max CAD Crystall/Connect) and sintered (Ta-
ble 2) (n = 20). In L and P techniques, the liner (ZirLiner) was
applied on the sintered zirconia using a metal mold and fired
(Table 2). In the L group, the veneering ceramic was layered
(IPS e.max Ceram) as a bar (25 × 5 × 1.5 mm3 ) and disk
shape (2.5 mm diameter, 2.5 mm height) by an experienced

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 3
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
Table 2 Firing procedures of the all-ceramic materials used
Predrying Predrying time
temperature ((C) (min.)
IPS e.max CAD Crystall/Connect 403 2 30
IPS e.max CAD Crystall/Glaze 403 6 60
IPS e.max ZirLiner 403 4 40
IPS e.max Ceram 403 4 40
IPS e.max ZirPress 700 – 60
IPS e.max Ceram Glaze 403 6 60
dental technician (n = 20). In the P group, pressable wax (FC
Modelling Wax) was modeled as bars (25 × 5 × 1.5 mm3 ) on
the frameworks. The total dimensions of the framework-veneer
combinations were measured with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo
Corp, Kanagawa, Japan), and then the dimensions of the ve-
neering wax model were subtracted from the total thickness. To
prevent the deformation of the wax superstructures, measure-
ment was performed by a precise digital caliper after the wax
model turned rigid. For disk-shaped (diameter: 2.5 mm, height:
2.5 mm) specimens for SBS tests, a sprue wax with a 2.5 mm
diameter was connected to each framework, and the combined
specimens were invested and pressed using a pressable ceramic
(IPS e.max ZirPress) as described above (n = 20) followed
by divesting and cutting the sprues from the specimens to the
required dimensions.
All specimens were glazed (IPS e.max Ceram Glaze & IPS
e.max CAD Crystall/Glaze) according to the manufacturer’s
instructions (Table 2). The crowns were seated on the stainless
steel dies using a glass-ionomer cement3,5,17 (RelyX Luting
Cement; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) under 300 g standard
load for 3 minutes by the same experienced operator using a
parallelometer pin.18 All specimens were stored at 37◦ C, 100%
humidity for at least 48 hours until mechanical testing.
Mechanical tests
The crown specimens were mounted in a universal testing ma-
chine (Autograph AG-500 kNG; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), and
the load was applied at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed until
fracture using a custom-made 7.5 mm diameter stainless steel
ball3 with a three-point-contact between the piston and the
occlusal surface. A 1-mm thin piece of polyethylene vacuum-
forming foil (Copyplast 1.0; Scheu-Dental, Iserlohn, Germany)
was used between the piston and the crown for distribution of
applied forces and to prevent stress concentrations on the ve-
neering material.3
The bar specimens (25 × 5 × 3 mm3 ) were placed flat on
an apparatus that had supporting rods 20 mm apart, and three-
point bending test was applied vertically at the center of the
specimen at a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed (Autograph AG-
50 kNG). The disk specimens were inserted in a metal ring
holder to apply the forces at the core/veneer interface with a
0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until fracture (Autograph AG-50
kNG), and SBS values were obtained by the software according
to the formula:19
Shear bond strength (MPa) = Load (N)/Area (mm2 )
4 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
Kanat et al
Heating rate Firing temperature Vacuum start Vacuum finish
((C/min) ((C) temperature ((C) temperature ((C)
840 550 820
840 550 820
960 450 959
750 450 749
900 500 900
725 450 724
Statistical analysis
Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA for all
groups (α = 0.05, SPSS 11.0 for Windows; Chicago, IL). Ad-
ditional post hoc tests (Bonferroni) were performed to make
multiple comparisons between the groups. p-values less than
0.05 were considered to be statistically significant in all tests.
Weibull statistical analysis (MINITAB Version 14; Minitab,
Inc., State College, PA) was used to describe fracture load
analysis and evaluate the reliability of veneering methods. The
adjusted Anderson-Darling (AD) goodness-of-fit with 95% CI
estimation method of maximum likelihood was performed for
mechanical test results data to determine the Weibull distribu-
tion and survival plot.
Failure type analysis
All fractured surfaces were assessed using a stereomicro-
scope (MP 320; Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) at 20× mag-
nification for failure analysis. Failure types were defined as
(a) adhesive failure between the zirconia framework and ve-
neering ceramic (Adhesive); (b) cohesive failure in the ve-
neering ceramic (Cohesive-cer); (c) cohesive failure in the
zirconia framework (Cohesive-zir); (d) mixed failure when
a combination of cohesive and adhesive failures occurred
(Mix). One representative specimen from each failure type
group was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) (JSM 5200; JEOL, Kyoto, Japan) with magnification
of 100× to 750× for FS test and 35× to 250× for SBS test to
analyze the pattern of debonding.
FEA
For crown modeling, the metal die, the anatomical framework
on the die, the multilayered design framework on the die, and
the final restoration obtained from the CD group were scanned,
and the created point clouds were transferred to an FEA pro-
gram (Simufact.forming v11.0; Simufact Engineering GmbH,
Hamburg, Germany). All layers were built with the identical di-
mensions and specific properties of each material, such as elas-
ticity modulus and Poisson’s ratio, using a reduction technique.
Finally, crown models including suprastructure, interfacial sur-
face, framework, and metal die for CD; and suprastructure,
anatomical framework, and metal die for L and P, were built to
present the location of the accumulated stresses obtained from
the FR test. The stainless steel ball with a three-point contact
with the occlusal surface was also modeled. Crown analyses
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kanat et al Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia

Table 3 Fracture loads for all groups (different superscript letters rep- parametric survival plot graphics of FR, FS, and SBS tests can
resent significant differences among groups) be seen in Figure 1.
Failure assessment of the crown specimens revealed that
Groups N Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
mostly cohesive-cer and cohesive-zir types of failures were
FR–P (N) 10 2507a 594 1178 3384 observed in CD (Fig 2a1), while only cohesive-cer failure type
FR–L (N) 10 4323b 462 3516 5119 was seen in L and P (Figs 2b1, 2c1). Also, lateral cracks were
FR–CD (N) 10 4408b 608 3622 5447 observed in the P group because of the failure pattern of ce-
FS–P (MPa) 10 566c 54 463 653 ramic with small pieces of chipping during the mechanical
FS–L (MPa) 10 428d 41 374 486 test (denoted by red dot in Fig 2c1). With FS tests, all the
FS–CD (MPa) 10 583c 63 487 702 bar-shaped specimens were broken into two pieces, including
SBS–P (MPa) 10 30e 8 19 44 zirconia framework. In the CD group, less delamination was
SBS–L (MPa) 10 28e 5 21 37 observed with respect to L and P. Mainly mixed and adhesive
SBS–CD (MPa) 10 49f 6 38 61 failures were observed in all groups after SBS tests, with the
exception of one cohesive-cer type in the P group (Table 5).
Table 4 Relation of the scale and shape parameters among groups
According to the FEA of crown restorations, the stresses ac-
(different superscript letters represent significant differences among
cumulated in the ceramic were propagated into the zirconia in
groups)
the CD group (Figs 2a2, 2a3). The stresses were largely accu-
mulated in the ceramic and in the zirconia along the interface
Scale (N) 95%CI (scale) (N) Shape 95%CI (shape) AD in the L group rather than the P group (Figs 2b2-2b3, 2c2–2c3).
a a
The SEM analysis of the failed surfaces of the bar speci-
FR CD 4663 (4316, 5039) 8.4 (5.2,13.6) 1.573
mens revealed no imperfections in ceramic for the CD group
P 2718b (2412, 3062) 5.4a (3.3, 8.9) 1.535
(Fig 3a1), whereas many lateral cracks and porosities were
L 4522c (4250, 4812) 10.5a (6.6, 16.8) 1.566
observed in L and P groups (Figs 3b1- 3c1). Although failures
Scale 95%CI (scale) 95%CI
(MPa) (MPa) Shape (shape) AD
occurred in fusing glass ceramic in the CD group, the interfacial
FS CD 610d (572, 650) 10.3b (6.5, 16.3) 1.641
bonding of the glass ceramic either to the zirconia or the veneer-
P 589e (558, 622) 12.0b (7.5, 19.1) 1.625 ing ceramic was not affected (Fig 3a2). In the L group, most
L 446f (423, 470) 12.3b (7.6, 20.1) 1.551 probably the porosities resulted in cracks and partial detach-
SBS CD 52g (48, 56) 8.5c (5.3, 13.5) 1.619 ments from the zirconia (Fig 3b2). The P group showed porosi-
P 32h (27, 37) 4.2c (2.6, 6.8) 1.570 ties and partial detachments from the framework material along
L 29i (26, 33) 6.0c (3.7, 9.6) 1.470 the interfacial area, similar to the L group (Fig 3c2). Figure 4
illustrates the distribution of failure modes of debonded repre-
sentative disk specimens. Zirconia surfaces were observed in
were performed by approximately 250,000 four-noded linear adhesive failures, whereas in mixed failures, both the adhesive
tetrahedral elements (element type 134). The forces obtained failures on the zirconia surfaces and cohesive failures within
from the FR test were applied to each veneering technique the ceramic were observed simultaneously.
group.
Discussion
Results
The exact reason for veneer chipping observed in zirconia core
The mean values of FR, FS, and SBS within groups are pre- restorations is unclear, but it is thought that generally three
sented in Table 3. For FR (N ± SD), significantly different factors play an important role in the chipping of the ceramic
values were obtained in group P (p < 0.05), while no signifi- for zirconia-supported restorations, namely interfacial bonding,
cant differences were observed between the L and CD groups match of the core-veneer materials, and strength of the veneer-
(p > 0.05) (Table 3). For FS (MPa ± SD), the L group exhibited ing ceramic.2,20,21 Veneering techniques also have a potential
the lowest values (p < 0.05), and there were no significant dif- effect on the chipping of ceramic due to the processing meth-
ferences between P and CD groups (p ≥ 0.05) (Table 3). SBS ods of ceramic.2,4 Accordingly, in the present study, the FR of
tests (MPa ± SD) resulted in significantly higher values in the single molar zirconia crowns with zirconia frameworks and ve-
CD group (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences neering ceramics prepared with different techniques (CAD-on,
between P and L groups (p ≥ 0.05). layering, overpressing) and the effect on chipping were investi-
Estimates of the parameters of the Weibull distribution for gated. Three complementary tests were conducted, in addition
the FR, FS, and SBS mechanical tests are presented in Table 4. to the FR test, to interpret the findings, namely three-point
The test to estimate shape parameters (p ≥ 0.05) indicated no bending test to investigate the effect of FS of the veneering
statistical differences in Weibull shape parameters among the ceramic on the restoration; SBS testing of the veneering ce-
veneering groups for any of the mechanical tests (Table 4). ramic and zirconia framework bilayered system to find out
The test for equal scale parameters (p < 0.05), together with whether the bond strength affected the FR of the crowns; and
the Bonferroni post hoc confidence interval, indicated that all finite element modeling simulating the loading conditions of
of the veneering method groups had different scale parameters the crown system to evaluate the location of the accumulated
for FR, FS, and SBS mechanical tests (Table 4). According to stresses. Also, to eliminate the mismatch of the framework
the analysis with the Weibull distribution, probability plot and and suprastructures, the materials were chosen according to the

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists 5
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia Kanat et al

Figure 1 Survival and probability plots of FR, FS, and SBS test groups.

manufacturers’ instructions. The results of this study demon- of the ceramic play an important role in the success of the
strated that the CAD-on technique resulted in significantly veneering technique.4,5,14,17 The veneering ceramic used in
higher FR values, although anatomical zirconia frameworks this technique has been reported to have an FS of approxi-
were used in the L and P groups. There were no signifi- mately 90 MPa. In the overpressing technique, the modeling
cant differences between CD and L groups with anatomical
cores according to ANOVA analysis, whereas the CD group Table 5 Failure-type distributions of mechanical test groups. A: Adhe-
had significantly higher values with respect to the L group sive, CC: Cohesive within veneering ceramic, CZ: Cohesive within zirco-
according to Weibull analysis. Thus, the null hypothesis was nia, M: Mixed
rejected. FR FS SBS
Currently used veneering techniques on zirconia frameworks
are layering, overpressing, or recently improved file-splitting A CC CZ M A CC CZ M A CC CZ M
(CAD-on). The layering technique is a very delicate method,
CD - 2 8 - - 10 - - 7 - - 3
as several factors such as the experience of the dental tech-
P - 10 - - - 8 - 2 5 1 - 4
nician, homogeneity of the mixed ceramic slurry, duration of
L - 10 - - - 9 - 1 7 - 3
the firing and cooling, the number of firings, and shrinkage

6 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kanat et al
Figure 2 Representative failure types and FEA models of the crown
restorations. (a1) Cohesive failures within ceramic and zirconia in CD
group. (a2-a3) von Mises stress distributions of CD can be seen. (b1)
Cohesive failures within ceramic in L group. (b2-b3) von Mises stresses
wax is placed on the sintered zirconia, and this combination is
attached to a flask by a sprue. The flask is filled with a spe-
cial investment material according to the manufacturer’s in-
structions. After the wax is burnt out, the pressable ceramics,
which have about 110 MPa FS, are pressed into the spaces, and
the final anatomic restorations are obtained.4 This technique
allows the restoration to be produced faster and easier, com-
pared with the conventional layering technique. Moreover, the
firing shrinkage observed in the layering technique can be min-
imized, and a good marginal adaptation of the restoration can
be obtained.17 However, preliminary processes such as accu-
rate attachment to the flask, cleanness of the modeling wax,
quality of the pressing material, temperature of the preheating
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
distributed over the entire surfaces can be observed in L. (c1) Cohesive
failure within ceramic and lateral cracks due to the stress peaks as indi-
cated with an arrow in the P group. (c2-c3) von Mises stress distribution
of P.
furnace, and controlled air-abrasion during separation of the
restorations from the investment material might affect the suc-
cess of this method. Particle size, morphology, and pressure
during air-abrasion may damage the ceramic surface. Since
the surfaces of the zirconia in the present study were already
veneered, they were not subjected to additional air-abrasion
during the airborne-particle abrasion procedure for divesting.
With the newly developed file-splitting (generic term: “CAD-
on”) technique, time-consuming and operator-sensitive labo-
ratory procedures such as impression making, model obtain-
ing, investing, and finishing can be eliminated with the aid
of computer-controlled design and fabrication.22 Furthermore,
the file-splitting (CAD-on) technique is introduced as a more
7
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia Kanat et al

Figure 3 Representative SEM images of the fractured bar-shaped speci- propagation arose from lateral cracks and porosities due to layering tech-
mens. (C: ceramic, Z: zirconia, A: adhesive material). (a1-a2) (left column) nique observed in L. (c1-c2) (right column) Porosities along the interface
Homogeneous ceramic and crack origin in the adhesive material as indi- and lateral cracks in P.
cated with an arrow can be seen for CD. (b1-b2) (center column) Crack

Figure 4 Representative SEM images of the debonded surfaces of disk-shaped specimens. (C: ceramic, Z: zirconia). (a1-a2) (left column) Mixed
failures in the CD group. (b1-b2) (center column) Mixed failures in the L group. (c1-c2) (right column) Mixed failures in the P group.

reliable method because of the advantages of prefabricated
blocks manufactured by industrial pressing without any porosi-
ties, perfect adaptation of the restorations by CAD/CAM sys-
tem, and fast processing.3
For in vitro studies, preparation of bilayered specimens has
been recommended since it has been reported that the super-
structure, framework, and the interfacial material act mutually
under force.20 Using analysis methods such as SEM and/or FEA
of fractured surfaces for assessment of the failed surfaces to-
gether with the mechanical tests, a connection between in vivo
and in vitro studies can be established.14 In the literature, the
chipping problem was investigated using only one mechanical

8 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 

C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kanat et al
test, and no studies about the recently introduced CAD-on tech-
nique could be derived with 3-point bending and SBS tests. In
this study, the crown-shaped restorations were used to imitate
the clinical situation for FR tests. To evaluate the effect of FS
of the ceramic on the FR, bar-shaped specimens were prepared
for 3-point bending tests. Also, disk-shaped specimens were
obtained for the SBS test to investigate the interfacial bonding
effect on the FR of crown restorations. In addition to mechani-
cal tests, stereomicroscopy and SEM were used to evaluate the
failure modes and debonded surface structures. The results of
the present study may provide clinically relevant data for wider
application of these materials.
It was previously stated that the rate and area of ceramic
chipping in zirconia-supported crowns might be significantly
reduced when an anatomically reduced core design was used
because of the cusp support and homogenous thickness of the
ceramic.9,16 It has also been reported that support of the anatom-
ical zirconia framework prevented chipping compared to the re-
sults of FS of the ceramic.9 Therefore, anatomical framework
design was used for the L and P groups in the present study.
Eisenburger et al17 found that layering of the veneering ce-
ramic group (IPS e.max ZirCAD-IPS e.max Ceram) showed
better FR values (919 ± 265 N) than the overpressing group
(IPS e.max ZirCAD-IPS e.max ZirPress) (798 ± 226 N). Al-
though the results of the present study were compatible with
these results, the reason for higher FR values (L: 4323 ± 462
N; P: 2507 ± 594 N) obtained in the present study could be
attributed to the differences in geometry and the anatomically
shaped framework used in this study.15 In a previous study,
fracture strengths of crown specimens made by CAD/CAM
fabricated nonanatomic formed zirconia framework (IPS e.max
ZirCAD) and veneering ceramics (IPS e.max CAD for S, IPS
e.max Ceram for L, IPS e.max ZirPress for P) were found to
be 6265 ± 2257 N with sintering, 3700 ± 1239 N with lay-
ering, and 3524 ± 1181 N with overpressing methods.3 In the
present study, the FR of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia frame-
works veneered with different veneering techniques tested on
crown specimens were 4408 ± 608 N for CD and 4323 ± 462
and 2507 ± 594 N for L and P, respectively. The results of
the present study showed that higher FR values could be ob-
tained in the layering technique when an anatomical zirconia
framework design is employed. In the P group, lower FR values
could be attributed to chipping of the veneering ceramic into
smaller pieces, causing lateral cracks. Also, the fracture types
observed in S and L in the literature3 were compatible with
our study, since failure within both veneer and zirconia was
observed more frequently in CD. On the other hand, only ce-
ramic chipping was observed in L. The overpressing veneering
technique (IPS e.max ZirPress) (1514 ± 332 N) was reported
to show higher load-bearing capacity than the layering tech-
nique (IPS e.max Ceram) (894 ± 160 N) on the zirconia core
(ZENO TEC; Wieland Dental, Pforzheim, Germany) according
to the Voss test of canine-form restorations.5 Tsalouchou et al23
showed that the differences between the layering (IPS e.max
Ceram) (2189.9 ± 317.6 N) and overpressing (IPS e.max Zir-
Press) (2135.6 ± 330.1 N) veneering materials on nonanatom-
ically designed zirconia frameworks (Kavo Everest, Biberach,
Germany) following cyclic loading were insignificant. The dif-
ferences between the results obtained in the above-mentioned
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
studies and in our study could be attributed to different frame-
work and veneering ceramic combinations as well as differing
mechanical testing modalities that may affect the bond strength.
The anatomical framework design in the present study might
have added to the increased bond strength values.
Liu et al24 reported that zirconia-supported specimens under
3-point bending test were broken into two pieces as in the
present study. It has been indicated that the FS of the ceramic
plays an important role on the fracture pattern. A ceramic with
300 MPa FS can lead to less delamination.24 In the CD group
in the present study,3 a lower delamination rate was observed
in the lithium disilicate group, because the FS was 360 MPa.
According to SEM analysis of fractured bar specimens in the
present study, the ceramic structure without any imperfections
in CD can be due to the homogeneity of the ceramic block.
Lateral cracks and porosities observed in both the L and P
groups can be explained with the sensitivity of the veneering
techniques. When the effect of FS of the ceramic according to
FS test on the FR values were examined in the present study,
higher FS of the ceramic for the CD group played an impor-
tant role on the FR. For the L group, higher FR values could
not be supported with FS values, which indicated the effect
of the anatomical framework design on the FR rather than the
FS of the layering ceramic. For the P group, the authors at-
tributed the differences found between lower FR and higher
FS values to contributing factors such as different fabrication
procedures, experience in handling of overpressing technology
for the dental technician, and recently suggested slower cooling
parameters.16,25-27
Ishibe et al4 investigated the SBS of zirconia cylinders (Lava;
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN) (diameter: 5 mm) to layered or
pressed ceramics (diameter: 3 mm). While the overpressing
group (e.max ZirPress) showed 40.41 ± 10.28 MPa SBS, in
the layering group (e.max Ceram), 30.03 ± 9.49 MPa was ob-
tained. The differences in the framework-superstructure com-
bination and thermocycling application could be reasons for
the discrepancy between the results. López-Mollá et al28 also
reported SBS of zirconia disks (IPS e.max ZirCAD) (length: 15
mm; diameter: 8 mm) to layered (IPS e.max Ceram) and press-
able ceramics (IPS max ZirPress) (length: 2 mm; diameter: 8
mm) as 7.85 ± 2.50 MPa and 12.69 ± 2.14 MPa, respectively.
Higher SBS results in the present study, which were similar
to the veneering techniques can be explained by different ge-
ometries and loading conditions of the specimens. Although
various opinions about the failure types after SBS test were
found in the literature, no correlations between the SBS values
and types of failures were observed in the present study. Ereifej
et al29 reported that layering veneering ceramic (IPS e.max Ce-
ram) on zirconia cores (IPS e.max ZirCAD) led to lower SBS
values (28.8 ± 9.5 MPa), adhesive failures because of insuffi-
cient wettability of the liner material applied on the zirconia,
and imperfections that occurred at the interfacial surface. SBS
values (28 ± 5 MPa) and adhesive fracture types compatible
with the literature were also observed in the present study.
Failure types after SBS test, observed in both stereomi-
croscopy and SEM, could be different.30 SEM analysis revealed
a thin ceramic layer on the zirconia framework. Hence, careful
investigation was recommended when stereomicroscopy was
used, since it provides less detailed topographic information.
9
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
In the present study, no correlations were found between the
failure types following SBS tests and different veneering tech-
niques, since stereomicroscopy was conducted for overall sur-
face inspection, and only representative specimens were ob-
served under SEM.
When the effect of interfacial bonding strength on the FR
values according to SBS tests were examined in the present
study, higher interfacial bonding in the CD group was noted.
That eventually played an important role on the FR. This can
be attributed to the durable bonding provided by the glass in-
terfacial ceramic. For the L group, higher FR values were also
not replicated with the SBS values, and an explanation for this
result might be that the anatomical framework design plays an
important role on the higher FR rather than interfacial bonding.
For the P group, lower FR and SBS values can be attributed to
low strength of the ceramic.
According to the overall results of the three mechanical tests,
FEA of the crowns and failure assessment, higher FR, bond
strength, and FSs of the ceramic in the CD technique, as well
as cohesive failure observed within the ceramic and zirconia for
most specimens can be attributed to durable interfacial bonding.
The stress propagation to the framework meant that a three-
layered system behaved as a monolithic structure. The FSs
of the interfacial fusion glass-ceramic material and veneering
ceramic play an important role in the success of the veneering
technique. For the L group, higher FR, low strength of the inter-
facial bonding and veneering ceramic, cohesive failures within
the ceramic, porosities in SEM, and the stress distribution along
the interfacial surface indicated that the success of the crown
restoration under the FR test arose from anatomical framework
design. For the P group, low FR, low interfacial bonding, co-
hesive failures within the ceramic, lateral cracks observed in
crown restorations, porosities along the interface in the SEM
images, and localized stresses revealed insufficient interfacial
bonding and weak ceramic strength as well as possible lack of
wettability.
The cutting procedure for ceramic materials by a diamond
saw at a slow speed under water cooling is used as a routine
process.31,32 Either some polishing stages can be followed af-
ter sawing procedures,31 or the sectioned specimens can be
subjected to the application of veneering ceramic directly.32
The influence on FS of surface roughness obtained after grind-
ing showed a decrease in surface roughness, but caused an
increase in FS.33 It was not in the scope of this study to in-
vestigate the effect of surface alterations arising from standard
sawing but could be the subject of future studies. Also, fu-
ture studies are required to investigate the effect of wettability
properties of the ceramic on the bond strength. Long-term in
vivo studies would also demonstrate the clinical performance
of the CAD-on technique on the veneering ceramic chipping
complications.
Conclusion
From this in vitro study, the following conclusions were
drawn:
10 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
Kanat et al
1. The file-splitting (CAD-on) technique could decrease ce-
ramic chipping due to higher strength of the ceramic and
the interfacial bonding.
2. Anatomical framework design increased the FR when a
layering veneering technique was employed.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Tijen Pamir at the
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ege University School of
Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey and Assist. Prof. Dr. Osman Çulha
at the Department of Materials Engineering, Celal Bayar Uni-
versity, Manisa, Turkey for the mechanical tests and Canderim
Önder at Netform, Izmir, Turkey for FEA analyses. The authors
extend their gratitude to Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechten-
stein for providing the veneering ceramic and fusion glass-
ceramic materials.
References
1. Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M: Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture:
a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:866-876
2. Denry I, Kelly JR: State of the art of zirconia for dental
applications. Dent Mater 2008;24:299-307
3. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Eichberger M, et al: High-strength
CAD/CAM-fabricated veneering material sintered to zirconia
copings—a new fabrication mode for all-ceramic restorations.
Dent Mater 2009;25:121-128
4. Ishibe M, Raigrodski AJ, Flinn BD, et al: Shear bond strengths of
pressed and layered veneering ceramics to high-noble alloy and
zirconia cores. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:29-37
5. Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Roos M, et al: Load-bearing capacity
and failure types of anterior zirconia crowns veneered with
overpressing and layering techniques. Dent Mater
2011;27:1045-1053
6. Goiato MC, Santos MR, Moreno A, et al: Prototyping for surgical
and prosthetic treatment. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:914-917
7. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S: Chipping behaviour of
all-ceramic crowns with zirconia framework and CAD/CAM
manufactured veneer. J Dent 2012;40:154-162
8. Wiedhahn K: The impression-free Cerec multilayer bridge with
the CAD-on method. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:33-45
9. Rosentritt M, Steiger D, Behr M, et al: Influence of substructure
design and spacer settings on the in vitro performance of molar
zirconia crowns. J Dent 2009;37:978-983
10. Komine F, Blatz MB, Matsumura H: Current status of
zirconia-based fixed restorations. J Oral Sci 2010;52:531-539
11. Rekow ED, Silva NR, Coelho PG, et al: Performance of dental
ceramics: challenges for improvements. J Dent Res
2011;90:937-952
12. Raigrodski AJ, Hillstead MB, Meng GK, et al: Survival and
complications of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: a
systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:170-177
13. Sailer I, Gottner J, Kanel S, et al: Randomized controlled clinical
trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental
prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:
553-560
14. Anusavice KJ, Kakar K, Ferree N: Which mechanical and
physical testing methods are relevant for predicting the clinical
performance of ceramic-based dental prostheses? Clin Oral Impl
Res 2007;18:218-231
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Kanat et al
15. Dündar M, Özcan M, Gökçe B, et al: Comparison of two bond
strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics. Dent
Mater 2007;23:630-636
16. Guess PC, Bonfante EA, Silva NR, et al: Effect of core
design and veneering technique on damage and reliability
of Y-TZP-supported crowns. Dent Mater 2013;29:
307-316
17. Eisenburger M, Mache T, Borchers L, et al: Fracture stability of
anterior zirconia crowns with different core designs and veneered
using the layering or the press-over technique. Eur J Oral Sci
2011;119:253-257
18. Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Özcan M, et al: Influence of cervical
finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic
crowns. Oper Dent 2009;34:586-592
19. Al-Dohan HM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, et al: Shear strength of
core-veneer interface in bi-layered ceramics. J Prosthet Dent
2004;91:349-355
20. Studart AR, Filser F, Kocher P, et al: Mechanical and fracture
behavior of veneer-framework composites for all-ceramic dental
bridges. Dent Mater 2007;23:115-123
21. Swain MV: Unstable cracking (chipping) of veneering porcelain
on all-ceramic dental crowns and fixed partial dentures. Acta
Biomater 2009;5:1668-1677
22. van Noort R: The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater
2012;28:3-12
23. Tsalouchou E, Cattell MJ, Knowles JC, et al: Fatigue and
fracture properties of yttria partially stabilized zirconia crown
systems. Dent Mater 2008;24:308-318
24. Liu Y, Feng H, Bao Y, et al: Fracture and interfacial
delamination origins of bilayer ceramic composites for dental
restorations. J Eur Ceram Soc 2010;30:1297-1305
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–11 
C 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Mechanical Performance of Veneering on Zirconia
25. Christensen RP, Ploeger BJ: A clinical comparison of zirconia,
metal and alumina fixed-prosthesis frameworks veneered with
layered or pressed ceramic: a three-year report. J Am Dent Assoc
2010;141:1317-1329
26. Rosentritt M, Kolbeck C, Handel G, et al: Influence of the
fabrication process on the in vitro performance of fixed dental
prostheses with zirconia substructures. Clin Oral Investig
2011;15:1007-1012
27. 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;55:306-310
28. Lopez-Molla MV, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Manes-Ferrer JF,
et al: Bond strength evaluation of the veneering-core ceramics
bonds. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:19-23
29. Ereifej N, Rodrigues FP, Silikas N: Experimental and FE
shear-bonding strength at core/veneer interfaces in bilayered
ceramics. Dent Mater 2011;27:590-597
30. Ashkanani HM, Raigrodski AJ, Flinn BF, et al: Flexural and
shear strengths of ZrO2 and a high-noble alloy bonded to their
corresponding porcelains. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:274-284
31. Kim HJ, Lim HP, Park YJ, et al: Effect of zirconia surface
treatments on the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic. J
Prosthet Dent 2011;105:315-322
32. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ: Microtensile bond
strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic
restorations. Part II: zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent Mater
2006;22:857-863
33. Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A: Influence of surface roughness on
mechanical properties of two computer-aided
design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic
materials. Oper Dent 2012;37:617-624
11