Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 30, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Evaluation of Stress Distribution in Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses Made of Translucent Zirconia with
Fahad Bakitian1,2, Evaggelia Papia1, Christel Larsson3
1Department of Materials Science and Technology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Purpose:
To evaluate the influence of the framework designs on the stress distribution within tooth-supported partially veneered fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made of translucent zirconia under simulated loads using a three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA).
Material And Methods:
For a linear 3D-FEA, simplified 3D solid models of prepared abutment teeth (first premolar and first molar) with different 3-unit FDPs were created. The models with different FDP designs-monolithic zirconia (control); semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.3 mm veneer thickness (SM0.3); semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness (SM0.5); semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness supported with cap design (SMC), and semi-monolithic zirconia with 0.5 mm veneer thickness supported with wave design (SMW)-were analyzed using 3D-FEA. The elastic properties of the components (bone, dentine, cement, translucent zirconia, and veneering porcelain) were obtained from the published data for FEA. Simulated static loading forces (300 N) were applied at 10° oblique direction over six points in the occlusal surfaces of the FDPs. Maximum principal stress, shear stress, and safety factor were calculated and analyzed among the different models.
Results:
Semi-monolithic with cap design showed the smallest maximum principal stress levels in the veneering porcelain compared to all other models (SM0.3, SM0.5, SMW). The SM0.3 had lower maximum principal stress levels in the veneering porcelain compared to SM0.5. Regarding stresses in the zirconia framework, all models had comparable results in maximum principal tensile stresses, except SMW had a lower value. Maximum principal stress levels were located in the veneer component of SM0.3, SM0.5, and SMW, whereas, such levels were observed in the cervical areas of the zirconia frameworks of SMC and control. The SM0.3 had the highest maximum shear stress levels at the zirconia-veneer interface, while SMW had the lowest shear values. The 3D-FEA models with different FDP designs showed different minimum safety factor levels.
Conclusions:
Framework and veneer designs play a significant role in the stress distribution of the partially veneered zirconia FDPs under loading. The FDPs with zirconia frameworks with cap design minimize the maximum principal tensile stress in the veneering porcelain. The FDPs with 0.3-mm-veneering porcelain show low maximum principal tensile stress in the veneering porcelain, but highest maximum shear stress at the zirconia-veneer interface. The FDPs with wave design of zirconia frameworks minimize the maximum shear stress considerably.
