Indian Journal of Dental Research

: 2020  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 236--240

Influence of different restorative material and cement on the stress distribution of ceramic veneer in upper central incisor

Marcela Moreira Penteado, João Paulo Mendes Tribst, Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva, Karen Cristina Archangelo, Marco Antonio Bottino, Alexandr Luiz Souto Borges 
 Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos/SP, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva
Laboratory of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, 777 Avenida Eng. Francisco José Longo, São José dos Campos, SP - 12245000


Aims: Considering new ceramic systems, doubts about the appropriate combination of ceramics and cement are common. Settings and Design: To evaluate the influence of the elastic modulus (E) of cement agents associated with different indirect veneers on the stress distribution using finite element analysis. Methods and Materials: The finite element analysis was applied to evaluate the stress distribution on the structures. For that, a computer-aided design software was used for a three-dimensional (3D) modeling of an upper central incisor with preparation for an indirect veneer. The model was imported into the analysis software in STEP (Standard for Exchange of Product data) format. Tetrahedral elements formed the mesh. Solids were considered isotropic, linearly elastic, homogeneous, and with ideal contacts. Load application (100N, 45°) occurred on the lingual face. Cement agents have their E classified as low, intermediate, and high. The ceramic materials used were a hybrid ceramic, a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate and a lithium disilicate. Results: It was observed that none of the factors significantly influenced the stress concentration in dentine. Groups with high E cementing agent showed the highest stress peaks. The E of restorative material was significant for the stress generated in the veneer, and groups with hybrid ceramic presented more homogeneous stress results. Conclusions: The higher E of the cement agent and the ceramic, the higher the stress concentration, suggesting that hybrid ceramic associated with low elastic modulus resinous cement has superior biomechanical behavior.

How to cite this article:
Penteado MM, Mendes Tribst JP, Dal Piva AM, Archangelo KC, Bottino MA, Souto Borges AL. Influence of different restorative material and cement on the stress distribution of ceramic veneer in upper central incisor.Indian J Dent Res 2020;31:236-240

How to cite this URL:
Penteado MM, Mendes Tribst JP, Dal Piva AM, Archangelo KC, Bottino MA, Souto Borges AL. Influence of different restorative material and cement on the stress distribution of ceramic veneer in upper central incisor. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 13 ];31:236-240
Available from:

Full Text


Ceramic veneer exhibit resistance to wear, favorable aesthetics, chemical stability, and biocompatibility. Therefore, they are considered as conservative alternatives for the tooth color, position, and shape (conoid tooth and diastema), which shows compromised aesthetics.[1],[2],[3],[4]

The veneer allows preserving greater dentine remnant, and provides a minimally invasive treatment.[5],[6] A ceramic and cement combination provides a favorable prognosis for a wide range of clinical cases, but some factors such as dental surface, ceramic thickness, cement type, preparation geometry, and occlusion are decisive factors for clinical success.[3],[6],[7]

Clinical investigation researches on ceramic restorations showed survival rates of 93.5% and 82.93% after 10 and 20 years, respectively.[8] The occurrences of catastrophic failures have been less reported, mainly because of the evolution of aesthetic ceramic materials.[9] Despite accentuated enhancement of these materials, there is still a possibility of cracks and chipping.[2],[5] Limitations of veneer restorative systems are due to extensive preparation which exposes dentine and compromises the bond strength,[10] increasing the occurrence of debonding or fracture.[7] Therefore, conservative preparations to preserve enamel (higher bond strength values than dentin) are the best technique choice whenever possible.[3],[5],[11] This technique can only be indicated due to the ceramic quality and manufacturing techniques that allow restorations with minimum thickness.[3],[12]

The occurrence of failures at incisal and cervical areas are common in veneer restorations.[4] It was observed as stress concentration in those areas. Therefore, to improve the stress profile preparation design is fundamental, even so indirect veneer is not indicated to overload through unbalanced occlusal, parafunctional activity, or deleterious habits.[4],[13]

On the other hand, cementing agents have a chemical composition which ensure good adhesion to both tooth and ceramic material when associated with adhesive systems.[3] Many studies have been conducted for this type of investigation,[3],[11],[14] as well as for surface treatments that could improve the adhesive interface. However, there are no reports that have evaluated the combination of the cement and ceramic elastic modulus and their influence on the stress distribution in the veneer, cement line, and dentine.

To evaluate the influence of each structure mechanical properties, the finite element method can be used. This computational simulation allows visualizing the fields of stress generated during the incidence of masticatory load, with limited variables but enough sensitivity to allow modifications in the colorimetric scale to visualize the differences between the groups. Although it is a theoretical analysis, the 3D simulation by Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method is widely used in dentistry, and its findings may contribute to support future laboratory or even clinical studies. As every research method, FEA has limitations, so the results are valid but must be interpreted with care.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the combination of different elastic modulus of the cementing agent (three levels) and the ceramic (three levels) using the finite element analysis, which allows analyzing the biomechanical behavior mathematically, without the need for recruiting natural teeth and investing in restorative materials.[15],[16] The null hypothesis was that different combinations of the materials would not interfere in the veneers performance.

 Subjects and Methods

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Rhinoceros 5.0 software (McNeel North America, USA) was used for 3D modeling of an upper central incisor for preparing an indirect veneer [Figure 1]c. The final model [Figure 1]f with enamel, dentine, periodontal ligament [Figure 1]d, ceramic [Figure 1]a, and cementing agent [Figure 1]b positioned in the fixation cylinder [Figure 1]e was acquired from the Laboratory of Bioengineering at São Paulo State University (Unesp/São José dos Campos) [Figure 1].{Figure 1}

Cementing agents and ceramics varied respectively between low, intermediate, and high elastic modulus [Table 1]. The elastic modulus of Hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany), Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany), and Lithium disilicate (IPS Emax press, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) were used. The veneer was assumed to have 0.5 mm of thickness and a cement line of 0.3 mm.[17] Then, the model was imported in STEP format to Ansys (version 15.0), a Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) software. Tetrahedral elements formed the mesh (639.065 elements and 1.097.954 nodes), and the solids were considered isotropic, linearly elastic, and homogeneous. All contacts were considered perfectly bonded and the fixation occurred at the base of the cylinder. A mesh convergence test (10%) was performed to guarantee that it would not interfere with the results. A load (100 N) was applied on the lingual face of the central incisor at 45° for structural static analysis, simulating an occlusal contact situation.[15] The mechanical properties (Elastic modulus and Poisson ratio) required for the analysis were summarized in [Table 1]. Results of maximum principal stress were requested for failure criteria. Results with difference larger than 10% were considered significant different.{Table 1}


Considering the maximum principal stress results, it was observed that the elastic modulus of the cement and the restorative material did not influence the stress distribution in dentine [Figure 2]a. The lingual region near the cement–enamel junction is the site of the highest stress concentration in all groups.{Figure 2}

For the cement line, its elastic modulus minimally influenced the stress concentration. The group with high E value presented the highest stress concentration near the restoration's margins, regardless of the type of ceramic [Figure 2]b. Stress generated in the veneer was influenced by the “restorative material.” Groups restored with hybrid ceramic (the lowest E) showed less stress concentration in the vestibular face and interproximal margins [Figure 2]c. In [Figure 3], maximum principal stress peaks (in the dentine, cement layer, and veneer) for each cement agent is shown according to the evaluated restorative material. According to the gradual increase of the cementing agents' elastic modulus, similar behavior is observed for the dentine; however, there is an increase in stress for both cement line and veneer.{Figure 3}


It was possible to correlate ceramic materials and different cementing agents through finite elements analysis (FEA), observing the stress generated in three regions – dentine, cement, and ceramic veneer. The null hypothesis was rejected because the cementing agent's and the restorative material's elastic modulus significantly influences the stress distribution in the rehabilitation.

FEA analysis is widely used in dentistry to study different situations such as partial restorations,[16] total crowns,[15] dental implants,[18] intraoral devices,[19] and mechanical responses after clinical interventions.[20] Here, the simulation was performed using a validated 3D model,[13],[21] following a compliance that evaluated other variables in indirect veneer restorations using FEA.[17]

During the chewing process, a load is directly applied on the lingual face of upper central incisors.[15] When a tooth is submitted to veneer restorative treatment, the first substrate found by the load vector is the enamel, which behaves in a similar manner, regardless of the ceramic and cement agent, reflecting similar results for dentine between all groups. These results can probably be explained due to the thickness of remaining dentine being the same for all groups and close enough to the load to avoid different behavior between groups. The thickness of the veneer (0.5 mm) and the cement (0.3 mm) add up to 0.8 mm of dental wear, assuming conventional necessary wear parameters.[2],[6],[17],[22] It is possible that increased wear interferes in stress distribution in dentine and more invasive cases require endodontic treatment. The amount of tooth wear (conservative or conventional) does not interfere with a tooth's fracture rates,[23] but more invasive preparations dissipate more stress to the veneers.[24]

Three different elastic modulus corresponding to three ceramic alternatives available on the market were used: a hybrid ceramic with a polymeric matrix having a low elastic modulus,[25] a long-term successful lithium disilicate based ceramic already proven in the literature,[16],[25] and finally a zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate as an alternative to lithium disilicate with similar strength.[26]

It is known that stress behavior is strongly associated with laminate design.[27] Literature shows that butt joint restoration at incisal face dissipate lower stress to the teeth.[27],[28],[29] Therefore, the model was designed without chamfer preparation modeled with 0.5 mm of thickness also to improve the adhesive performance.

Ceramic veneers' adhesive cementation consists of a crucial step because if the complete polymerization of the resin cement is not reached, the restoration's color stability will be compromised in the long term, as well as the mechanical properties of fracture resistance and adequate adherence to remaining dentine.[30],[31],[32]

To improve mechanical properties of resin cements, the composite resins were started to be used as cementing agents due to its large number of charge. Its preheating allows better adaptation of the restoration and better monomer conversion.[33] This use of a high charge containing cementing agent was simulated in the group with high elastic modulus. Thus, when the stress in the cement line was observed, it was possible to observe that the larger the elastic modulus of the cement material, the higher the concentration of stress near the edges of the restoration. As shown in [Figure 2]c, small regions of stress concentration were assumed to be insufficient to detach the veneers due to the large area that remains homogeneous. However, because it is the marginal region, it is possible to suggest the occurrence of marginal infiltration and pigmentation. It can also be observed that the higher the stress concentration in the cement line, the more stress transmitted to the ceramic, which is not enough to fracture it due to the flexural strength of the restorative materials currently available on the market. Therefore, the adhesive interface remains the critical region of this study because the restorations' success is attributed to the quality of the adhesive interface.[34]

Although ceramic materials have high elastic modulus and high stiffness, hybrid ceramics (one of evaluated materials with the lowest elastic modulus) presented the most favorable behavior in relation to the load distribution for both cement line and veneer. It is suggested that veneer cementation with a composite resin may be unfavorable according to the ceramic materials used. This is contrary to the findings of Addison et al. (2007),[35] and Fleming et al. (2012),[36] wherein high elastic modulus favored the ceramics' performance. It is possible that the results obtained by these studies are linked to the type of ceramics used, and that possible adhesive failures will cause future problems not immediately observed.

Marginal adaptation of hybrid ceramic compared to feldspathic is higher; however, bond strength is lower than feldspathic after fatigue.[37] In principal, it was observed that the gradual increase of the cement's elastic modulus did not favor the performance of the veneers. In literature, there is no long-term monitoring of cementation with heated composite resin,[37],[38] but in using FEA's mathematical results it is believed that pre-heating composite resin with low elastic modulus could allow to postpone marginal infiltration.[38]

It is important to emphasize that this is a theoretical study. In this manner, an ideal condition was absent from variables such as temperature, pH, and mechanical fatigue present in the oral environment.[18],[19] In addition, the materials simulated herein are isotropic, absent from defects with a homogeneous cementation layer without bubbles, and with controlled thickness.[13] The findings herein are valid due to the consolidated methodology.[13],[15],[16],[18],[19],[20],[21] However, future laboratory and clinical studies should be conducted to prove the theoretical results presented.


Within this study's limitations, the combination of both ceramic and cement with low elastic modulus suggests the best biomechanical behavior. Therefore, clinicians should be aware regarding the best combination of materials for a better clinical prognosis.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1White SN, Miklus VG, Chang PP, Caputo AA, Fong H, Sarikaya M, et al. Controlled failure mechanisms toughen the dentino-enamel junction zone. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:330-5.
2Ge C, Green CC, Sederstrom D, McLaren EA, White SN. Effect of porcelain and enamel thickness on porcelain veneer failure loads in viro. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:380-7.
3Lambade DP, Gundawar SM, Radker UM. Evaluation of adhesive bonding of lithium disilicate ceramic material with duel cured resin luting agents. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC01-5.
4Obradovic-Duricic KB, Medic VB, Dodic SM, Durisic SP, Jokic BM, Kuzmanovic JM. Porcelain venners-preparation design: A restrospective review. Hem Ind 2014;68:179-92.
5Alavi AA, Behrooxi Z, Eghba FN. The shear bond strength of porcelain laminate to prepared and unprepared anterior teeth. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci2017;18:50-5.
6Radz GM. Minimum thickness anterior porcelain restorations. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:353-70.
7Ramos N de C, Campos TM, Paz IS, Machado JP, Bottino MA, Cesar PF, et al. Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2016;32:870-8.
8Bejer US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:79-85.
9Ranganathan H, Ganapathy DM, Jain AR. Cervical and incisal marginal discrepancy in ceramic laminate veneering materials: A SEM analysis. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8:272-8.
10Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B. Prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:65-76.
11Öztürk E, Bolay Ş, Hickel R, Ilie N. Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to enamel, dentine and enamel-dentine complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. J Dent 2013;41:97-105.
12Horvath S, Schulz CP. Minimally invasive restoration of a maxillary central incisor with a partial veneer. Eur J Esthet Dent 2012;7:6.
13Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Souza ROA, Borges ALS. Influence of alveolar bone loss and cement layer thickness on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary incisors: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Endod 2017;43:791-5.
14Tribst J, Anami LC, Özcan M, Bottino MA, Melo RM, Saavedra G. Self-etching Primers vs acid conditioning: Impact on bond strength between ceramics and resin cement. Oper Dent 2018;43:372-9.
15Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Borges ALS, Souza ROAE, Bottino MA. CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations. Dent Mater 2018;S0109-5641:30026-35.
16Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Madruga CFL, Valera MC, Borges ALS, Bresciani E, et al. Endocrown restorations: Influence of dental remnant and restorative material on stress distribution. Dent Mater 2018;S0109-5641:31303-9.
17Matson MR, Lewgoy HR, Barros Filho DA, Amore R, Anido-Anido A, Alonso RC, et al. Finite element analysis of stress distribution in intact and porcelain veneer restored teeth. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2011;1:1-6.
18Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Simulated damage of two implant debridement methods: Nonsurgical approach with Teflon and stainless steel hand scalers. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2018;22:340.
19Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Simulation of mouthguard use in preventing dental injuries caused by different impacts in sports activities. Sport Sci Health 2018;1-6. doi: 10.1007/s11332-018-0488-4.
20Tribst JPM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Influence of custom-made and stock mouthguard thickness on biomechanical response to a simulated impact. Dent Traumatol 2018;34:429-37.
21Monteiro JB, Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Borges ALS, Tango RN. The effect of resection angle on stress distribution after root-end surgery. Iran Endod J 2018;13:188-94.
22Ganjkar MH, Heshmat H, Ahangari RH. Evaluation of the effect of porcelain laminate thickness on degree of conversion os light cure and dual cure resin cement using FTIR. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci 2017;18:30-6.
23Bergoli CD, Meira JBC, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Survival rate, load to fracture, and finite element analysis of incisors and canines restored with ceramic veneers having varied preparation design. Oper Dent 2014;39:530-40.
24Jankar AS, Kale Y, Kangane S, Ambekar A, Sinhas M, Chaware S. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of ceramic venner with three different incisal design preparations – An in vitro study. J Intern Oral Health 2014;6:48-54.
25Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014;30:424-32.
26Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 2016;32:908-14.
27Stappert CF, Ozden U. Gerds T, Strub JR. Longevity and failure load of ceramic venners with different preparation designs after exposure to masticatory simulation. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:132-9.
28Hahn P, Gustav M, Hellwig E. An in vitro assessment of the strength of porcelain veneers dependent on tooth preparation. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:1024-9.
29Costa DC, Coutinho M, Sousa AS, Ennes JP. A meta-analysis of the most indicated preparation design of porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:215-20.
30Blatz MB, Sadan A, Martin J, Lang B. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths of resin to densely-sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic after long-term storage and thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:356-62.
31Turgut S, Bagis B. Colour stability of laminate veneers: An in vitro study. J Dent 2011;39:e57-64.
32Rodrigues RB, Lima E, Roscoe MG, Soares CJ, Cesar PF, Novais VR. Influence of resin cements on color stability of different ceramic systems. Braz Dent J 2017;28:191-5.
33Ayub KV, Santos GC Jr, Rizkalla AS, Bohay R, Pegoraro LF, Rubo JH, et al. Effect of preheating on microhardness and viscosity of 4 resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc 2014;80:e12.
34Mobilio N, Fasiol A, Catapano S. Qualitative evaluation of the adesive interface between lithium disilicate, luting composite and natural tooth. Annali di Stomatologia 2016;VII: 1.
35Addison O, Marquis PM, Fleming GJ. Resin elasticity and the strengthening of all-ceramic restorations. J Dent Res 2007;86:519-23.
36Fleming GJ, Hooi P, Addison O. The influence of resin flexural modulus on the magnitude of ceramic strengthening. Dent Mater 2012;28:769-76.
37Bottino MA, Campos F, Ramos NC, Rippe MP, Valandro LF, Melo RM. Inlays made from a hybrid material: Adaptation and bond strengths. Oper Dent 2015;40:E83-91.
38Silva JCC, Reges RV, Reges ICC, Cruz CAS, Vaz LG, Estrela C, et al. Pre-heating mitigates composite degradation. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:571-9.