Abstract:Objective: Increased consideration of dental ceramics and dental cements as a singular structural unit for in-vitro mechanical testing has resulted in the reporting of a wide range of analytical methods to calculate the failure stresses. Therefore a comparison of observations between studies is complicated by the use of dissimilar stress solutions despite the employment of a similar testing methodology and specimen geometry. Materials and methods: Three analytical solutions to calculate failure stresses in bi-axially loaded dental ceramic-dental cement bilayers were appraised for a commonly utilized testing geometry (ball-on-ring). Clinically relevant datasets were generated from the bi-axial flexure testing of uncoated and dental cement coated aluminous core ceramic exposed to differing ceramic surface preparations. A Weibull statistical approach was utilized in order to provide insight into the impact of the analytical method on both the scale (sigma0) and distribution (m) of the failure stress data. Results: Calculation of the bi-axial flexure stress utilizing Timoshenko's analysis resulted in an increase in sigma0 for the uncoated (6%) and dental cement coated (11-12%) aluminous core ceramic, when compared with the bilayered solutions reported by Rosenstiel and Hsueh. However, the shape of the failure distributions illustrated by the consistency of m and associated 95% confidence intervals was not influenced by the analytical stress solution employed. Significance: The choice of the analytical method chosen to calculate failure stresses in bi-axially loaded dental ceramic-dental cement bilayers will impact on the magnitude of the reported strength. Comparison between the failure stresses of uncoated and cement coated dental ceramics is more accurately represented by bilayer solutions, which account for the mismatch between the elastic constants of dissimilar materials. However, within the context of dental cement coated dental ceramics of clinically relevant dimensions, the choice of solution is unlikely to impact on the interpretation of the observations previously reported in the dental literature.

Review of the fracture toughness approach

Evaluation of the cracked lap shear test for mixed-mode fracture toughness estimation of adhesive joints

Probing the Mineralized Tissue-Adhesive Interface for Tensile Nature and Bond Strength

Fracture toughness evaluation at the interface of universal adhesives and tooth dentine using mini-interfacial fracture toughness test

Failure analysis of clinically failed all-ceramic fixed partial dentures using fractal geometry

Material properties and finite element analysis of adhesive cements used for zirconia crowns on dental implants

Evaluating the advancements in a recently introduced universal adhesive compared to its predecessor

Fracture Toughness of Short Fibre-Reinforced Composites—In Vitro Study

A statistical approach to the mechanical testing of dental materials

Interfacial Fracture Mechanical Aspects of Adhesive Bonded Joints—A Review

Application of analytical stress solutions to bi-axially loaded dental ceramic-dental cement bilayers

Biomechanical perspectives on dentine cracks and fractures: Implications in their clinical management

Computational Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Adhesive Joints

Forensic and reliability analyses of fixed dental prostheses

Fracture energy and cohesive law analysis of adhesives using a recently developed SCB joint: The influence of joint geometry and mode mixity

Micro-mechanical interlocking and chemical bonding of self-etching adhesives at the resin-tooth hard tissue interfaces

Fatigue of the resin-dentin interface: a new approach for evaluating the durability of dentin bonds

A Critical Perspective on Mechanical Testing of Implants and Prostheses

Method of understanding for investigation of crack propagation trajectory and fracture aspects in dental cracks on view of fracture mechanics theories

Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments