Classification Of Ceramics

Presented By: Layan Suleiman

Microstructural Classification
• At the microstructural level, we can define ceramics by the nature of
their composition of glass-to-crystalline ratio.
 Composition category 1: glass-based systems (mainly silica);
 Composition category 2: glass-based systems (mainly silica) with
fillers, usually crystalline (typically leucite or, more recently, lithium
disilicate);
 Composition category 3: crystalline- based systems with glass fillers
(mainly alumina);
 Composition category 4 – polycrystalline solids (alumina and
zirconia).1
1. (Edward A. McLaren & Phong Tran Cao, 2009)
Crystalline- Based Systems With Glass Fillers
• The high failure rate for all-ceramic posterior crowns has resulted in the
development of high alumina content ceramics reinforced with glass-
infiltration to improve the fracture strength of the current all-ceramic fixed
prostheses;
• One of these is In-Ceram, an infiltrated alumina core material that is
veneered with a feldspathic porcelain;
• The system was developed as an alternative to conventional metal ceramics
and has been met with great clinical success;
• The system uses a sintered crystalline matrix of a high modulus material
(85% of the volume), in which there is a junction of the particles in the
crystalline phase.
SEM of In-Ceram, which demonstrates a high
level of crystalline structure with glass filler.
• In-Ceram core comprises porous insoluble particles that are made
from alumina, spinell, or zirconia. These materials are mixed with
water to form a suspension known as “slip.”
• The slip mass is then sintered at 1120 °C for 10 h to produce a porous
structure. Or it can be milled from a pre-sintered block of either
material.
• The alumina or spinell framework is then infiltrated with a low-
viscosity lanthanum glass at high temperature.
• These core materials are veneered with feldspathic porcelain to
improve the aesthetic traits.2

2. (Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, 2018)

Milling from a pre-formed monoblock of In-
Ceram alumina.
Applying the infiltration glass to the
In-Ceram coping.
After firing of the infiltration glass.
In-Ceram Alumina

• Vita In-Ceram alumina was first introduced in 1990. This material

consists of 75 wt% polycrystalline alumina and 25% infiltration glass.
• It has high strength and fracture toughness of 500 MPa and 3.1 Mpa
respectively, with medium translucency, which makes it suitable for
posterior crowns and anterior bridges.

2. (Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, 2018)

In-Ceram Spinell
• Vita In-Ceram spinell was developed in 1994.
• This material consists of 78 wt% magnesium aluminum oxide
(MgAl2O4) and 22 wt% infiltration glass.
• It exhibits the highest aesthetic requirements, but it shows the lowest
level of mechanical properties compared with other In-Ceram
materials. It has flexural strength and fracture toughness of 400 MPa
and 2.7 MPa•m1/2, respectively.
• Therefore, In-Ceram spinell is only recommended for inlays and
anterior crowns.

2. (Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, 2018)

Vita In-ceram Spinell Crown.
In-Ceram Zirconia

• In-Ceram zirconia was introduced in 1999.

• This material is based on In-Ceram alumina of 67 wt% with the
addition of stabilized zirconia of 33 wt%.
• It is currently the strongest material of the In-Ceram range with a
flexural strength and fracture toughness of 600 MPa and 4.8 MPa·m1/2
respectively.
• The material is also opaque, so it is recommended for crowns,
posterior three-unit bridges and possibly masking discolored teeth.

2. (Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, 2018)

• Extremely high flexural strengths have been reported for this new
class of dental ceramic, three to four times greater than any other class
of dental ceramic.
• It is theorized that this high strength is due to the primarily crystalline
nature of this material and minimal glassy phase, in which a flaw
would have to propagate through either the high modulus alumina or
spinell to cause ultimate failure.
• Several clinical studies support the use of glass-infiltrated alumina (In-
Ceram) for single units anywhere in the mouth.

1. (Edward A. McLaren & Phong Tran Cao, 2009)

Polycrystalline Solids
• Polycrystalline ceramics: nonmetallic inorganic ceramic materials that do
not contain any glass phase3
• Solid-sintered, monophase ceramics are materials that are formed by
directly sintering crystals together without any intervening matrix to form a
dense, air-free, glass-free, polycrystalline structure.
• There are several different processing techniques that allow the fabrication
of either solid-sintered aluminous-oxide or zirconia-oxide frameworks.
• Solid-sintered ceramics (polycrystalline glass-free) have the highest
potential for strength and toughness, but because of high firing temperatures
and sintering, shrinkage techniques were not available until only recently as
to use them as high-strength frameworks for crowns and FPDs
1. (Edward A. McLaren & Phong Tran Cao, 2009)
3. (Gracis, 2015)
SEM Of Solid Sintered Zirconia
• There are three basic techniques for fabricating solid-sintered,
monophase, ceramic frameworks for porcelain application:
1. DCS Precident, (DENTSPLY Austenal, York, PA) machines the final
desired framework shape from a solid sintered block of material.
This system is expensive and has not proven cost effective because
of the excessive machining time and manual labor necessary to
adjust and fit the coping.
2. The Procera system uses an oversized die where a slurry of either
aluminous oxide or zirconia oxide is applied and subsequently fired;
it fully sinters and shrinks to fit the scanned die.
3. The third method that has been recently developed machines an
oversized coping from a partially sintered block of zirconia-oxide
material (alumina is not used in dentistry for this process), which is
then fired to full sintering temperature. This then shrinks to fit the
die.
• Zirconia has unique physical characteristics that make it twice as
strong and twice as tough as alumina-based ceramics. Reported values
for flexural strength for this new material range from over 900 MPa to
1,100 MPa.
• A more important physical property is fracture toughness, which has
been reported to lie between 8 MPa and 10 MPa for zirconia. This is
significantly higher than any previously reported ceramic, and roughly
twice the amount reported for the alumina materials. Fracture
toughness is a measure of a material’s ability to resist crack growth.
Zirconia has the apparent physical properties to be used for posterior
three-unit FPDs. Initial reports on zirconia have not demonstrated a
problem with the zirconia framework.
• Within Composition Categories 2 and 3 there can be great variation of
composition and there are several commercial materials in these
groups. Glass-based systems (Categories 1 and 2) are etchable and
thus easily bondable. Crystalline-based systems (Categories 3 and 4)
are not etchable and thus much more difficult to bond. Categories 1
through 3 can exist in a powdered form that is then fabricated using a
wet-brush technique, or they can also be pre-processed into a block
form that can be pressed or machined. As a general rule, powder/liquid
systems have much lower strength than pre-manufactured blocks
because of a much larger amount of bubbles and flaws in the finished
restoration.
Bibliography
• Edward A. McLaren, D. M., & Phong Tran Cao, D. (2009). Ceramics in Dentistry—Part I: Classes of Materials . Inside Dentistry .
• Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, R. A. (2018). An Overview of the Development and Strengthening of All-Ceramic Dental Materials.
Biomedical & Pharmacology Journal.
• Gracis, S. (2015). A New Classification System for All-Ceramic and Ceramic-like Restorative Materials. The International Journal of Prosthodontics.
• Lee, B. (2017). Proceedings of the IV Advanced Ceramics and Applications Conference. Atlantis Press.