ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2026
Fracture Load in Monolithic Multilayer Zirconia Crowns From Three Manufacturers: an in Vitro Study.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multilayer zirconia crowns have gained popularity in oral rehabilitation due to their combination of gradient aesthetics and mechanical strength. However, gaps exist in the literature regarding differences in fracture load among commercial brands, a critical variable for their selection in patients with parafunctional habits. Previous studies have evaluated monolithic zirconia, but few have examined multilayer zirconia under standardized conditions. The present in vitro study compared the fracture load of monolithic crowns fabricated from multilayer zirconia discs of three commercial brands: BeautyZir, Upcera, and Yucera. Methods: A comparative experimental study was conducted using 30 monolithic crowns made from multilayer zirconia discs, distributed as follows: 10 crowns from ST + Multilayer® BeautyZir, 10 from 4D Pro® Yucera, and 10 from Explore® Upcera. Abutments were fabricated with a chamfer finish preparation on an ivorine tooth (#16) and scanned with the TRIOS 3 intraoral system (3Shape®). The resulting STL file was laser-sintered in cobalt‒chromium to obtain the abutment for crown placement. Crown design was performed in Exocad® software with a central fossa depth of 2.1 mm. The crowns were milled according to each brand's specifications and subjected to fracture load testing on a universal Instron® machine, applying axial force using a 12-mm-diameter metallic sphere at a crosshead speed of 3 mm/s. Data were collected using Excel and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05), following verification of normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Results: Mean fracture loads (±SD) were: ST + Multilayer®: 1807 N (±463), Explore®: 1682 N (±368), Yucera®: 1173 N (±183). ANOVA revealed significant differences between groups ( Conclusion: The three multilayer zirconia brands tested withstood normal occlusal forces, but Upcera and BeautyZir were better suited for patients at risk of higher loads. The lack of difference between Upcera and BeautyZir supports their interchangeable clinical use. The lower resistance of Yucera and high dispersion in BeautyZir emphasize the need for stringent quality control during manufacturing. Future studies should incorporate thermocycling, cementation, and in vivo follow-up to validate these findings under clinical conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.