Next Article in Journal
Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of TheraBreath™ Oral Rinses: An In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Journal
Orbital Cellutitis and Peri-Zygomatic Cutaneous Fistula After Monolateral Double Zygomatic Implant Placement: Case Report and Narrative Literature Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fluoride Casein Phosphopeptide and Tri-Calcium Phosphate Treatments for Enamel Remineralization: Effects on Surface Properties and Biofilm Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Dentistry Journal
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/dj13090382
dentistry-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Porcelain Fused to Titanium—Advantages and Challenges

by
Zlatina Tomova
1,2,*,
Desislav Tomov
3,
Angelina Vlahova
1,2,
Gergana Kirova
4 and
Yordanka Uzunova
3,5
1
Center of Innovative Technologies in Dental Implantology, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
2
Department of Prosthetic Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
3
Research Institute, Medical University of Plovdiv, 15A Vassil Aprilov Blvd. 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
4
Department of Chemical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
5
Department of Bioorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dent. J. 2025, 13(9), 382; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090382
Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 14 August 2025 / Accepted: 20 August 2025 / Published: 24 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Materials Design and Application)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Although dental implants appear to be an alternative for treatment of tooth loss, fixed prosthetic restorations are an irreplaceable part of oral rehabilitation. Regarding the EU directives concerning cobalt health risks, titanium alloys may be an alternative to cobalt–chromium and nickel–chromium for metal–ceramic dental restorations. The presented review briefly describes the specific properties of titanium, and the challenges met during production and use of titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations.

1. Introduction

In the field of Prosthetic dental medicine fixed restorations like crowns and bridges are used in cases of destruction of hard dental tissues and partial edentulism. The advantages of these types of restorations include physiological transfer of occlusal pressure through the abutment teeth to the bone, high esthetics and mechanical performance, acceptable longevity and biocompatibility [1]. Although dental implants appear to be an alternative for treatment of tooth loss, fixed prosthetic restorations are an irreplaceable part of the oral rehabilitation.
Regarding the materials used for production, fixed restorations may be divided into two main groups: full contour, produced by one single type of material, and veneered, produced by a combination of materials with different properties. The choice of the final fixed prosthetic restoration—full metal, full ceramic, or metal–ceramic—is usually made after a discussion and analysis of the most desired characteristics for each specific clinical case. Full ceramic crowns and bridges offer the best biocompatibility. However, the low mechanical resistance of lithium silicate ceramics limits their use for single crowns and small bridges in areas of low occlusal load. The lack of translucence of crystal ceramics like zirconia makes them inappropriate for cases of high aesthetic demands. The share of metal–ceramic fixed restorations is still significant due to the combination of excellent mechanical properties provided by metal infrastructure, and the good aesthetics provided by veneering ceramics.
Since the implementation of metal–ceramic production method in the middle of 20th century, the types of alloys preferred for fabrication have been changing in time. At first, noble alloys were mostly used, providing high biocompatibility and natural esthetics due to the warm color of gold [2]. Nevertheless, they were replaced by base alloys because of their superior mechanical properties and lower cost [3]. Nowadays, nickel–chromium alloys are of limited use because of cytotoxicity and nickel allergy concerns. Cobalt–chromium base dental alloys offer excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and a strong metal–ceramic bond. However, recent EU regulations might lead to restrictions on their use due to the high cobalt content and possible health risk [4]. Considering the excellent corrosion resistance and the high biocompatibility of titanium and its alloys, they may become a promising alternative to the aforementioned types for metal–ceramic dental restorations [5]. Studies show that fracture and fatigue resistance of titanium crowns are similar to those of crowns with frameworks of nickel–chromium alloys [6].
Digital technologies revolutionized dental medicine by changing both clinical and laboratory work protocols. Milling (subtractive manufacturing) and 3D printing (additive manufacturing) as a part of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) workflow facilitated the implementation of titanium and titanium alloys not only in the field of maxillo-facial surgery and implantology but also in everyday dental work, as they are considered perfect materials for 3D printing [7].

2. Titanium Alloys in Dental Prosthetics

Titanium and titanium alloys have been used in the medical field for several decades for the production of artificial scaffolds, articular joint prostheses, fracture fixation devices in orthopedics, and dental implants [7]. Titanium medical devices exhibit high corrosion resistance, acceptable mechanical strength, excellent biocompatibility, and modulus of elasticity close (but not the same) to that of the bone. They possess low specific weight and a remarkable strength-to-weight ratio, and are considered bioinert, inducing minimal adverse effects to the human body [8,9].
Titanium is an element that undergoes allotropic transformation—from hexagonal α-structure at room temperature, it transforms to body-centered cubic β-structure at 883 °C. While the stabilized α-structure provides high strength, modulus of elasticity, and hardness, the β-structure determines ductility and high temperature performance. Titanium alloys are divided into five classes—α, near α, α + β, near β, and β according to the crystalline lattice present, and different elements may be used to stabilize the desired structure and properties (Table 1) [10,11]. Standards have been created and accepted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) regarding the composition and the indications of use of these alloys and nowadays they are classified in 38 grades [12,13].
The rapid spontaneous formation of surface layer of TiO2 leads to high corrosion resistance of titanium and its alloys [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. However, some specific environmental factors in the oral cavity, like changes in acidity, bacteria, inflammatory diseases, tribocorrosion, and even tooth brushing and fluor-containing mouthwashes, may cause partial degradation of the passive layer [16,21,22,23,24]. As a result, ions and particles from the metal restoration are disseminated in the surrounding tissues and may be spread in distant areas of the body. Titanium ions emitted from the surface interact with anions present in the medium, forming hydroxides, oxides, and salts, which hardly react with other biomolecules [25]. The fast formation of low-reactive compounds explains the high biocompatibility of titanium and its alloys (Figure 1). Although scarce, there is evidence for pathological effects of titanium—potential change in oxidative stress levels, cellular disturbances, cases of hypersensitivity [26,27].
Corrosion resistance and overall biological safety make titanium one of the most appropriate metals for application in different areas of the human body, including the oral cavity [28].
An electronic search was completed in PubMed and Google Scholar databases for the interval 2015–2025 regarding titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations. Key words and phrases used were “porcelain fused to titanium”, “titanium-ceramic fixed restorations” or “crowns”, “titanium-ceramic bond strength”, “titanium-ceramic esthetics”, or “optical properties”. The search revealed more than 7600 articles. After initial screening, 519 articles regarding bond strength and 102 regarding esthetics were assessed. Most of the studies on titanium properties were correlated with the use of titanium in the field of implantology, investigating corrosion, osseointegration, surface implant treatment, and biocompatibility, and were excluded from further review. The aim of our article is to summarize the results of conducted research regarding titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations and to point future directions for exploration of this promising combination.

3. Titanium Framework Production

The conventional production method for metal ceramic prosthetic restorations involves casting of the metal alloy—the so-called lost wax casting technique. When the wax design is completed, the wax prototype of the metal framework is invested and after increasing the temperature, the melted metal alloy fills the cavity created after the wax elimination, usually under the action of centrifugal forces. The chemical properties of titanium, however, cause some restraints when this technique is used. Its affinity for oxygen at high temperatures leads to reaction with SiO2, which is the main refractory material used. Other types of investment materials containing different refractory compounds like MgO, Al2O3, or ZrO2 must be utilized for titanium casting. For preventing reaction with atmospheric oxygen, the presence of inert gases (argon, helium) must be provided for the process [29,30].
With the development and widespread of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM techniques), titanium frameworks for metal–ceramic restorations can be produced by milling of titanium disks (cpTi or titanium alloys). One of the advantages of milling is the use of prefabricated cpTi (commercially pure titanium) or titanium alloys with constant composition and structure. Other advantages include lack of deformation of the final object during production and receiving a framework, precisely corresponding to the digitally created design [31]. However, this subtractive method may cause surface changes and residual stresses, affecting some properties of the restoration [32]. The amount of waste material is also a matter of concern.
The implementation of 3D printing technologies like selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, and electron beam melting in the production of metal medical and dental devices allowed fabrication of more complex, customized objects. In these additive techniques powder alloys are utilized, and the final metal framework is created layer by layer using laser or electron beam power (Figure 2) [33,34].
CAD/CAM technologies require initial investment and a specific learning curve for both dentists and dental technicians. Intraoral scanning and digital design reduce the risk of deformation by eliminating the use of conventional impression and model materials, thus contributing to the fit and precision of the final restoration. Reduced clinical and laboratory time has a positive effect on the patients’ satisfaction, influencing the treatment outcome [35].
Numerous studies point out that structure, surface morphology and mechanical properties are strongly influenced by the method of production (casting, milling, 3D printing) and by the specific parameters during manufacturing—type of inert gas used during casting or printing, object orientation, layer thickness and laser speed during printing, post-processing conditions [33,36,37,38,39] (Figure 3).

4. Metal–Ceramic Bond Strength, Surface Treatment

The compliance between the ceramic material and the titanium alloy is crucial for the longevity of metal–ceramic dental restorations. The characteristics of the surface oxide layer, coefficient of thermal expansion, surface morphology, and wettability play a significant role regarding the strength of the metal–ceramic bond. As high temperatures promote excessive oxidation of the titanium surface, low-fusing porcelain masses that comply with the properties of titanium alloys have been presented on the market with specific instructions of use given by the producers [31].
The standard ISO 9693:2019 defines the minimal requirements for metal–ceramic bond strength of 25 MPa [40]. Investigations of Uz et al. proved that the strength between titanium frameworks and ceramics is similar to that of cobalt–chromium alloys and meets the standard requirements, in cases of both milling and additive manufacturing techniques [41]. Vaska et al. came to the same conclusion [42].
However, a clinical study showing a six-year follow-up of patients with titanium–ceramic crowns revealed poor clinical performance mainly due to veneering porcelain fractures, revealing difficulties in achieving a strong and tight metal–ceramic bond [43]. Adhesion of ceramic material to titanium is likely the biggest challenge that should be overcome before wider implementation of titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations.
To modify the surface properties titanium framework may be processed mechanically by sandblasting, grinding, and polishing, or chemically and electrochemically—by etching, coating formation, micro arc oxidation, plasma spraying, and ion implantation. Required surface properties may also be achieved by the micropattern design of the surface of the titanium device using 3D metal printing technologies. All these methods lead to surface modifications which increase corrosion resistance, improve biocompatibility and osseointegration of titanium implants, increase wettability, and prevent bacterial adhesion [11].
The control of thickness and structure of the surface oxide layer is challenging and crucial for the formation of the titanium–ceramic bond. Prior to ceramic veneering, different surface treatment methods may be applied, resulting in formation of either a controlled oxide layer with desired thickness and firmness, or an interlayer providing higher bond strength by adding specific elements on the interface between the alloy and the ceramic material. Metal–ceramic bond strength may be modified by different approaches, as shown in Figure 4 and Table 2.
Titanium–ceramic bond strength can be increased by several approaches:
–
Mechanical surface treatment—sandblasting, airborne particle abrasion (APA)
–
Physical surface treatment—laser treatment
–
Chemical and electrochemical surface treatment—etching, anodization, microarc oxidation (MAO)
–
Bonding agent application
–
Biomimetic surface morphology creation
–
Combined surface treatment
Titanium surface processing by sandblasting significantly improves the bond with the veneering ceramic material due to modifications of surface topography and creation of micromechanical retentions [47]. After sandblasting with Al2O3, SEM shows presence of aluminum particles on the titanium surface [31]. Attempts for removal of these particles by etching with combination of acids lead to a decrease in the metal–ceramic bond strength [48].
In their investigations Aslan et al. and Yuan et al. [49,50] studied the effect of coating agents on the metal–ceramic bond strength between milled titanium and porcelain. They found that coating with micro-arc oxidation (MAO) and hydroxyapatite significantly improved the bond compared to only airborne particle abrasion of titanium surfaces. Studies of Antanasova et al. showed that combination of surface treatment (APA) with Al2O3 and bonding agent application on both milled and additively manufactured specimens significantly increased the titanium–ceramic bond strength [51].
Studies of Vuorinen et al. revealed that plating silver on the titanium surface significantly improved the bond strength with the veneering ceramic material [52].
Hu et al. explored the effect of sandblasting pressure and the application of gold coating on titanium surfaces and reached the conclusion that both factors—increased pressure and coating—improved the bond between SLM titanium and ceramics [53]. In the same research they found that thermocycling did not affect titanium–ceramic bond strength.
Studies of Svanborg et al. showed that grinding prior to sandblasting might be excluded from the treatment protocol when a titanium framework was produced by additive manufacturing methods [54].
When tribochemical silica coating is applied to the titanium surface, silicon, which may be found within the titanium oxide layer, becomes involved in forming complex oxides. According to the studies of Fukuyama et al., these oxides improve the wettability of the metal surface, thus increasing both its compatibility with the bonding agent and titanium–ceramic bond strength [55].
Processing of the titanium surface with ultraviolet irradiation (UVI) increases the wettability and significantly improves the bond strength with porcelain without causing morphological changes on the treated areas [56].
Studies show that laser treatment with a ytterbium-doped fiber laser or an Nd:YAG laser may improve the bond strength between milled titanium and ceramics. However, sandblasting achieves higher values of adhesion [62].
Yang et al. demonstrated in their study that a biomimetic titanium surface with a strictly chosen design increases remarkably wettability and bond strength between ceramics and the titanium framework produced by selective laser melting [57].
On the other hand, Curtis et al. found that application of the coating agent provided by the producer of the ceramic system did not affect bond strength between milled titanium and ceramics [58].
Porcelain firing may also affect the titanium ceramic bond—the use of argon protective atmosphere during sintering results in a stronger bond compared to sintering in vacuum [59].
Airborne particle abrasion (APA, sandblasting) and application of bonding agents, which limit the formation of excessively thick and porous surface oxide layer, appear to be the most applied in everyday laboratory workflow. Although some of the other described methods provide similar or even better results, especially compared to bonding agent application, these two types of surface treatment are among the most popular ones probably because of their ease of application—they are cost-effective, do not require specific equipment and the working protocol for the specific bonding agent is given by the producers of the low fusing ceramics [63].
Studies showing that thermal and mechanical cycling may negatively affect the titanium ceramic bond, point to a matter of concern [60,61].
Although in-vitro investigations prove that titanium–ceramic bond strength meets the requirements of 25 MPa according to ISO 9693:2019, evidence of clinical performance is scarce. The study of Hey et al. investigated the survival rate of 45 titanium–ceramic crowns with CAD/CAM milled framework for a 6-year period of function [43]. It was found that neither loss of retention nor secondary caries lesion had occurred, indicating good marginal and internal fit of the restorations. The effect on the periodontal tissues was described as minimal, as no periodontal complications were present. However, 10 cohesive and 2 adhesive fractures were found during the studied period, resulting in 27% damaged crowns. Ceramic fractures are the major points of concern regarding titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations because they compromise esthetics and disturb function by loss of occlusal contacts and contacts to adjacent teeth.

5. Internal Fit, Marginal Fit

Internal and marginal fit of the final fixed prosthetic restorations are other important factors contributing to the longevity of dental treatment and to the occurrence of possible complications. Discrepancies in the marginal adaptation to the retainers may cause acute and chronic inflammation of the gingival tissues. Thick crown edges may serve as plaque-retentive spots. They may cause development of caries lesions on the abutments, destruction of hard dental tissues, tooth loss, and eventually treatment failure. Gurel et al. explored the marginal and internal fit of titanium and cobalt–chromium frameworks made by traditional casting and CAD/CAM milling [64]. They came to the conclusion that both types of tested materials and methods of production provide comparable and clinically acceptable fit of the dental restorations. Other studies show similar results, proving the possibility of wider use of titanium for fixed dental prostheses [65,66,67].
When comparing the fit of titanium crowns produced by the two innovative approaches—milling and selective laser melting, it was found that the additive technique provides a slightly better internal fit, though both are within the clinically accepted range [68,69].
Porcelain firing cycles may affect marginal and internal fit of titanium crowns by increasing the discrepancies between the restoration and the abutment [70].

6. Color and Esthetics

Methods for improving esthetics and masking the grayish color of titanium abutments and implant-supported frameworks include titanium anodization, providing enough thickness of the ceramic material, and choosing appropriate opacity of the cement [71,72]. According to the studies of Elter et al., airborne particle abrasion may increase the grayish color of the titanium surface, thus influencing the final esthetic result [73]. However, only the study of Korkmaz was available in the PubMed database regarding esthetic outcomes of titanium–ceramic crowns for the last 10 years. In this research three different techniques were used for production of the titanium frameworks of the specimens—milling of titanium grade 2, casting of titanium grade 1, and 3D printing (laser sintering) of Ti64 grade 5. Spectrophotometric color measurements were performed before opaque application, after opaque application, and after porcelain plus glaze application. Results showed that production method of the titanium framework may influence the final color and esthetic outcome, and it was concluded that casting and milling production methods provided better optical results than laser sintering [30].

7. Conclusions

Mechanical properties and biocompatibility of titanium and its alloys described in the last few decades allow them to replace successfully nickel– and cobalt–chromium base dental alloys. Although titanium is considered highly biocompatible, evidence reporting adverse effects can be found. This fact points out the necessity of future studies on the biological effects after long-term clinical exposure.
Titanium–ceramic prosthetic restorations appear to possess better biological response, similar fit, and comparable metal–ceramic bond strength compared to conventional metal–ceramics. However, there is still no uniform protocol for laboratory surface treatment of titanium.
Three-dimensional printing of titanium frameworks allows the creation of specific biomimetic surface morphology, thus increasing the wettability and metal–ceramic bond strength. The obstacles in the application of titanium in prosthodontics due to the specific requirements during casting have been overcome by the methods of subtractive and additive manufacturing. Novel CAD/CAM technologies have enabled the production of titanium frameworks with promising characteristics, which may be implemented widely in contemporary prosthetic treatment.
However, most of the presented studies are conducted in laboratory conditions with strictly defined experimental parameters. Further investigations are needed to assess the longevity, esthetics, and clinical behavior of titanium–ceramic fixed prosthetic restorations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.T. and D.T.; methodology, A.V. and G.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.T.; writing—review and editing, Y.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is financed by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, project № BG-RRP-2.004-0007-C03.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

APAairborne particle abrasion
Cp Ticommercially pure titanium
CAD/CAMcomputer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
SLMselective laser melting
SLSselective laser sintering
EBMelectron beam melting
UVIultraviolet irradiation
MAOmicro-arc oxidation
HAhydroxyapatite
Nd:YAGneodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet

References

  1. Alsterstål-Englund, H.; Moberg, L.-E.; Petersson, J.; Smedberg, J.-I. A retrospective clinical evaluation of extensive tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses after 10 years. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Givan, D.A. Precious metals in dentistry. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 51, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Roach, M. Base metal alloys used for dental restorations and implants. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 51, 603–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vaicelyte, A.; Janssen, C.; Borgne, M.L.; Grosgogeat, B. Cobalt–Chromium Dental Alloys: Metal Exposures, Toxicological Risks, CMR Classification, and EU Regulatory Framework. Crystals 2020, 10, 1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Koizumi, H.; Takeuchi, Y.; Imai, H.; Kawai, T.; Yoneyama, T. Application of titanium and titanium alloys to fixed dental prostheses. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019, 63, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lian, S.-F.; Lin, C.-K.; Tsai, K.-T.; Chang, Y.-H. Study on fatigue and fracture resistance of metal ceramic crowns with CAD/CAM-fabricated titanium copings. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2019, 28, 118–122. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gao, C.; Wang, C.; Jin, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z.; Shi, C.; Leng, Y.; Yang, F.; Liu, H.; Wang, J. Additive manufacturing technique-designed metallic porous implants for clinical application in orthopedics. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 25210–25227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sarraf, M.; Rezvani Ghomi, E.; Alipour, S.; Ramakrishna, S.; Liana Sukiman, N. A state-of-the-art review of the fabrication and characteristics of titanium and its alloys for biomedical applications. Bio-Design Manuf. 2022, 5, 371–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dias Corpa Tardelli, J.; Bolfarini, C.; Cândido Dos Reis, A. Comparative analysis of corrosion resistance between beta titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloys: A systematic review. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. Organ. Soc. Min. Trace Elem. 2020, 62, 126618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Available online: https://www.dentalmastermed.com/application-of-titanium-and-titanium-alloys-in-dentistry (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  11. Kaur, M.; Singh, K. Review on titanium and titanium based alloys as biomaterials for orthopaedic applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019, 102, 844–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Standard Specification for Powder Metallurgy (PM) Titanium and Titanium Alloy Structural Components. Available online: https://www.astm.org/b0988-18r22.html (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  13. Standard Specification for Titanium and Titanium Alloy Castings. Available online: https://www.astm.org/b0367-13r17.html (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  14. Eliaz, N. Corrosion of metallic biomaterials: A review. Materials 2019, 12, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prestat, M.; Thierry, D. Corrosion of titanium under simulated inflammation conditions: Clinical context and in vitro investigations. Acta Biomater. 2021, 136, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, W.-Q.; Zhang, S.-M.; Qiu, J. Surface analysis and corrosion behavior of pure titanium under fluoride exposure. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 239.e1–239.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhong, Q.; Pan, X.; Chen, Y.; Lian, Q.; Gao, J.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; Shi, Z.; Cheng, H. Prosthetic Metals: Release, Metabolism and Toxicity. Int. J. Nanomed. 2024, 19, 5245–5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ellakany, P.; AlGhamdi, M.A.; Alshehri, T.; Abdelrahman, Z. Cytotoxicity of Commercially Pure Titanium (cpTi), Silver-Palladium (Ag-Pd), and Nickel-Chromium (Ni-Cr) Alloys Commonly Used in the Fabrication of Dental Prosthetic Restorations. Cureus 2022, 14, e31679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Turkina, A.Y.; Makeeva, I.M.; Dubinin, O.N.; Bondareva, J.V.; Chernodoubov, D.A.; Shibalova, A.A.; Arzukanyan, A.V.; Antoshin, A.A.; Timashev, P.S.; Evlashin, S.A. The Impact of Commercially Available Dry Mouth Products on the Corrosion Resistance of Common Dental Alloys. Materials 2023, 16, 4195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bilhan, H.; Bilgin, T.; Cakir, A.F.; Yuksel, B.; Von Fraunhofer, J.A. The effect of mucine, IgA, urea, and lysozyme on the corrosion behavior of various non-precious dental alloys and pure titanium in artificial saliva. J. Biomater. Appl. 2007, 22, 197–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gaur, S.; Agnihotri, R.; Albin, S. Bio-Tribocorrosion of Titanium Dental Implants and Its Toxicological Implications: A Scoping Review. Sci. World J. 2022, 2022, 4498613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abey, S.; Mathew, M.T.; Lee, D.J.; Knoernschild, K.L.; Wimmer, M.A.; Sukotjo, C. Electrochemical behavior of titanium in artificial saliva: Influence of pH. J. Oral Implant. 2014, 40, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fage, S.W.; Muris, J.; Jakobsen, S.S.; Thyssen, J.P. Titanium: A review on exposure, release, penetration, allergy, epidemiology, and clinical reactivity. Contact Dermat. 2016, 74, 323–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Faverani, L.P.; Barão, V.A.R.; Ramalho-Ferreira, G.; Ferreira, M.B.; Garcia-Júnior, I.R.; Assunção, W.G. Effect of bleaching agents and soft drink on titanium surface topography. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2014, 102, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hanawa, T. Biocompatibility of titanium from the viewpoint of its surface. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2022, 23, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, J.; Liu, C.; Sun, H.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, G.; Wang, Q.; Yang, D. The progress in titanium alloys used as biomedical implants: From the view of reactive oxygen species. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 1092916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Swalsky, A.; Noumbissi, S.S.; Wiedemann, T.G. The systemic and local interactions related to titanium implant corrosion and hypersensitivity reactions: A narrative review of the literature. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2024, 10, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Holm, C.; Morisbak, E.; Kalfoss, T.; Dahl, J.E. In vitro element release and biological aspects of base-metal alloys for metal-ceramic applications. Acta Biomater. Odontol. Scand. 2015, 1, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lautenschlager, E.P.; Monaghan, P. Titanium and titanium alloys as dental materials. Int. Dent. J. 1993, 43, 245–253. [Google Scholar]
  30. Korkmaz, C. Effect of different production techniques on the color of porcelain-fused-to-titanium restorations. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Papia, E.; Arnoldsson, P.; Baudinova, A.; Jimbo, R.; Vult VON Steyern, P. Cast, milled and EBM-manufactured titanium, differences in porcelain shear bond strength. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Marin, E.; Lanzutti, A. Biomedical Applications of Titanium Alloys: A Comprehensive Review. Materials 2023, 17, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Trevisan, F.; Calignano, F.; Aversa, A.; Marchese, G.; Lombardi, M.; Biamino, S.; Ugues, D.; Manfredi, D. Additive manufacturing of titanium alloys in the biomedical field: Processes, properties and applications. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2018, 16, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tshephe, T.S.; Akinwamide, S.O.; Olevsky, E.; Olubambi, P.A. Additive manufacturing of titanium-based alloys- A review of methods, properties, challenges, and prospects. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cuschieri, L.A.; Casha, A.; No-Cortes, J.; Ferreira Lima, J.; Cortes, A.R.G. Patient Satisfaction with Anterior Interim CAD-CAM Rehabilitations Designed by CAD Technician versus Trained Dentist—A Clinical Preliminary Study. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gu, D. Laser Additive Manufacturing (AM): Classification, Processing Philosophy, and Metallurgical Mechanisms. In Laser Additive Manufacturing of High-Performance Materials; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Barbin, T.; Velôso, D.V.; Silva, L.D.R.; Borges, G.A.; Presotto, A.G.C.; Barão, V.A.R.; Mesquita, M.F. 3D metal printing in dentistry: An in vitro biomechanical comparative study of two additive manufacturing technologies for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 108, 103821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Harada, Y.; Ishida, Y.; Miura, D.; Watanabe, S.; Aoki, H.; Miyasaka, T.; Shinya, A. Mechanical Properties of Selective Laser Sintering Pure Titanium and Ti-6Al-4V, and Its Anisotropy. Materials 2020, 13, 5081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hsu, T.-I.; Jhong, Y.-T.; Tsai, M.-H. Effect of Gradient Energy Density on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Ti6Al4V Fabricated by Selective Electron Beam Additive Manufacture. Materials 2020, 13, 1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/75855.html (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  41. Uz, N.; İşisağ, Ö.; Perçin, S.; Aslantaş, K.; Kılıçlı, V. In vitro evaluation of bond strength between dental ceramics and titanium frameworks produced by additive and subtractive methods. BMC Oral Health 2025, 25, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Vaska, K.R.; Nakka, C.; Reddy, K.M.; Chintalapudi, S.K. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between titanium-ceramic and cobalt-chromium-ceramic: An in vitro study. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2021, 21, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hey, J.; Beuer, F.; Bensel, T.; Boeckler, A.F. Single crowns with CAD/CAM-fabricated copings from titanium: 6-year clinical results. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 112, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhao, C.Q.; Wu, S.Q.; Lu, Y.J.; Gan, Y.L.; Guo, S.; Lin, J.J.; Huang, T.T.; Lin, J.X. Evaluation to the effect of B2O3-La2O3-SrO-Na2O-Al2O3 bonding agent on Ti6Al4V-porcelain bonding. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 63, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yang, J.; Kelly, J.R.; Bailey, O.; Fischman, G. Porcelain-titanium bonding with a newly introduced, commercially available system. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 116, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, P. Effect of TiO2-SiO2-SnOx film with different firing temperatures on bond strength of low-fusing dental porcelain to pure titanium. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chin. J. Stomatol. 2015, 50, 433–437. [Google Scholar]
  47. Moldi, A.I.; Bhandari, K.S.; Nagral, S.; Deshpandey, S.; Kulkarni, P. Effect of sandblasting on fracture load of titanium ceramic crowns. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2015, 15, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Parchańska-Kowalik, M.; Wołowiec-Korecka, E.; Klimek, L. Effect of chemical surface treatment of titanium on its bond with dental ceramics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aslan, M.A.; Ural, C.; Arici, S. Investigation of the effect of titanium alloy surface coating with different techniques on titanium-porcelain bonding. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 115, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yuan, M.J.; Zhang, S.J.; Liu, J.; Tan, F. Effects of different concentrations of MgSiF(6) as electrolyte for micro-arc oxidation on the bond strength between titanium and porcelain. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chin. J. Stomatol. 2018, 53, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
  51. Antanasova, M.; Kocjan, A.; Hočevar, M.; Jevnikar, P. Influence of surface airborne-particle abrasion and bonding agent application on porcelain bonding to titanium dental alloys fabricated by milling and by selective laser melting. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 123, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vuorinen, V.; Kouhia, R.; Könönen, M.; Kivilahti, J.K. Bonding of ceramics to silver-coated titanium-A combined theoretical and experimental study. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2024, 112, e35407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hu, D.-D.; Ren, C.-X.; Luo, X.-P. Effect of surface treatment on the three-point bend bonding strength between pure titanium fabricated by selective laser melting and porcelain. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2023, 32, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Svanborg, P.; Le, H.H.; Sigurðardóttir, S.J.; Barkarmo, S. Shear bond strength of the ceramic veneer to additively manufactured titanium. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2024, 10, e820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Fukuyama, T.; Hamano, N.; Ino, S. Effects of silica-coating on surface topography and bond strength of porcelain fused to CAD/CAM pure titanium. Dent. Mater. J. 2016, 35, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumasaka, T.; Ohno, A.; Hori, N.; Hoshi, N.; Maruo, K.; Kuwabara, A.; Seimiya, K.; Toyoda, M.; Kimoto, K. Influence of ultraviolet irradiation treatment on porcelain bond strength of titanium surfaces. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, L.; Liang, X.; Liu, M. Influence of microstructure on metal-ceramic bonding in SLM-manufactured titanium alloy crowns and bridges. Biomed. Tech. 2025, 70, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Curtis, J.G.; Dossett, J.; Prihoda, T.J.; Teixeira, E.C. Effect of Bonding Agent Application Method on Titanium-Ceramic Bond Strength. J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2015, 24, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, J.-C.; Fu, P.-S.; Lai, P.-L.; Liu, C.-S.; Chen, W.-C.; Hung, C.-C. Effect of different firing atmospheres on debonding strength of dental porcelain fused to commercially pure titanium. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2020, 36, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Antanasova, M.; Kocjan, A.; Kovač, J.; Žužek, B.; Jevnikar, P. Influence of thermo-mechanical cycling on porcelain bonding to cobalt-chromium and titanium dental alloys fabricated by casting, milling, and selective laser melting. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2018, 62, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Yong, T.; Bo, G. Effects of thermal and mechanical cycling on the metal-ceramic bond strength of machine-milled Ti2448 alloy and pure titanium. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = West China J Stomatol. 2016, 34, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yeşil, H.; Ezmek, B.; Sipahi, C.O. Effects of surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of ceramic to cast, milled and laser-sintered titanium frameworks. Gulhane Med. J. 2022, 64, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Parushev, I.; Dikova, T.; Katreva, I.; Gagov, Y.; Simeonov, S. Adhesion of dental ceramic materials to titanium and titanium alloys: A review. Oxf. Open Mater. Sci. 2023, 3, itad011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gurel, K.; Toksavul, S.; Toman, M.; Tamac, E. In vitro marginal and internal adaptation of metal-ceramic crowns with cobalt-chrome and titanium framework fabricated with CAD/CAM and casting technique. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2019, 22, 812–816. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Wu, J.-S.; Xing, H.-L.; Dong, C.-F.; Guo, T.-W.; Yang, S.-F. Research on physical and mechanical properties, crown accuracy by using self- made FUS-invest dental investment. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2017, 26, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Xing, H.; Guo, T.; Dong, C.; Yang, S. Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Marginal Fit of Crowns Fabricated Using Commercially Pure Titanium and FUS-Invest. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 5807304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kayikci, O.; Ates, S.M. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of three-unit implant-supported fixed prosthetic substructures fabricated using CAD/CAM systems. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 1283–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ryniewicz, W.; Bojko, Ł.; Ryniewicz, A.M. The Impact of Sintering Technology and Milling Technology on Fitting Titanium Crowns to Abutment Teeth-In Vitro Studies. Materials 2022, 15, 5835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Svanborg, P.; Eliasson, A.; Stenport, V. Additively Manufactured Titanium and Cobalt-Chromium Implant Frameworks: Fit and Effect of Ceramic Veneering. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2018, 33, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cuiling, L.; Liyuan, Y.; Xu, G.; Hong, S. Influence of coping material selection and porcelain firing on marginal and internal fit of computer-aided design/computer- aided manufacturing of zirconia and titanium ceramic implant-supported crowns. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = West China J Stomatol. 2016, 34, 262–266. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wadhwani, C.P.K.; Schoenbaum, T.; King, K.E.; Chung, K.-H. Techniques to Optimize Color Esthetics, Bonding, and Peri-implant Tissue Health With Titanium Implant Abutments. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2018, 39, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
  72. Moecke, S.E.; Diniz, A.L.; Borges, A.B.; Torres, C.R. Titanium abutment background masking using highly opaque cements for implant prosthetics. Am. J. Dent. 2023, 36, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  73. Elter, B.; Tak, Ö. Influence of cement shade, ceramic thickness, and airborne-particle abrasion of titanium surface on the final color of monolithic lithium disilicate glass-ceramic hybrid-abutment systems in vitro. Quintessence Int. 2022, 53, 678–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dentistry 13 00382 g001
Figure 1. Mechanisms explaining the excellent biological properties of titanium.
Figure 1. Mechanisms explaining the excellent biological properties of titanium.
Dentistry 13 00382 g001
Dentistry 13 00382 g002
Figure 2. Steps of production of titanium–ceramic dental restorations: conventional production technique (orange), CAD/CAM techniques (green) and possible cross paths between the two major groups (yellow).
Figure 2. Steps of production of titanium–ceramic dental restorations: conventional production technique (orange), CAD/CAM techniques (green) and possible cross paths between the two major groups (yellow).
Dentistry 13 00382 g002
Dentistry 13 00382 g003
Figure 3. Methods of production of titanium frameworks.
Figure 3. Methods of production of titanium frameworks.
Dentistry 13 00382 g003
Dentistry 13 00382 g004
Figure 4. Treatment methods for improving bond strength between titanium frameworks and veneering ceramic material.
Figure 4. Treatment methods for improving bond strength between titanium frameworks and veneering ceramic material.
Dentistry 13 00382 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of the most used titanium alloys in the dental field.
Table 1. Characteristics of the most used titanium alloys in the dental field.
Type of AlloyMicrostructure Advantages DisadvantagesIndications of UsePossible Production Techniques
Cp Ti grade 1αHigh biocompatibility, excellent resistance to corrosion, ductileLowest strengthDental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic restoration frameworksCasting, milling, 3D printing
Cp Ti grade 2αGood biocompatibility, good corrosion resistance, Moderate strengthDental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic restoration frameworksCasting, milling, 3D printing
Cp Ti grade 3αHigher strength than grade 2, high biocompatibilityLower ductility than grade 2Dental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic restoration frameworksMilling, casting, 3D printing
Cp Ti grade 4αGood strength, high biocompatibilityLower ductility than grade 3Dental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic restoration frameworksMilling, 3D printing, casting
Ti6Al4V (grade 5)α + βHigh strength, good fatigue resistancePresence of potentially toxic components (Al, V)Dental implants, prosthetic frameworks3D printing, milling, casting
Ti6Al4V ELI (grade 23)α + βHigh strength, good fatigue resistancePresence of potentially toxic components (Al, V)Dental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic frameworks3D printing, casting, milling
Ti6Al7Nbα + βHigh strength, high biocompatibilityPresence of potentially toxic element (Al)Dental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic frameworks3D printing
Ti5Al2,5Fe (grade 9)α + βGood corrosion resistance, excellent biocompatibility, higher strength than cp TiPresence of potentially toxic element (Al) Dental implants, implant abutments, prosthetic frameworks3D printing, milling
Ti13Nb13ZrβLow elastic modulus, excellent biocompatibilityComplex processingDental implants3D printing
Ti15MoβHigh mechanical properties, good biocompatibilityLow wear resistance, surface treatment neededDental implants3D printing
Table 2. Factors affecting titanium–ceramic bond strength.
Table 2. Factors affecting titanium–ceramic bond strength.
Authors Type of StudyMethod of Treatment/Specific ConditionsType of Metal Alloy Production TechniqueTesting MethodResults
1Zhao et al., 2016 [44].In vitroApplying bonding agent B2O3– La2O3-SrO–Na2O–Al2O3Ti6Al4VSelective laser melting (SLM)Three point bending testIncreased metal–ceramic bond strength
2Yang et al., 2016 [45].In vitroBonding agent Cp Ti grade 4millingCrack initiation stressesIncreased metal–ceramic bond strength
3Zhang and Zhang 2015 [46].In vitroTiO(2)-SiO(2)-SnOx nano-coatings Cp TimillingThree-point flexure bond test Increased metal–ceramic bond strength
4Moldi et al., 2015 [47].In vitroSandblasting with 250 μm Al2O3 particlesCp Ti grade 2castingFracture load by universal testing machineIncreased metal–ceramic bond strength
5Papia et al., 2018 [31]. In vitroPassivation/no passivationCpTi grade 1
CpTi grade 2
Ti6Al4V		Casting
Milling
Electron beam melting (EBM)		Shear bond strength test using universal testing machineTime of passivation does not affect bond strength
Milled Ti showed lowest bond strength
6Parchańska-Kowalik, Wołowiec-Korecka, and Klimek 2018 [48].In vitroRemoval of Al2O3 particles after sandblasting by etchingCp Ti grade 1Casting Shear bond strengthDecreased bond strength
7Aslan, Ural, and Arici 2016 [49].In vitroMicroarc oxidation (MAO) with hydroxyapatite (HA)Titan grade 5Milling Bond strength by universal testing machineIncreased bond strength after coating with MAO and HA
8Yuan et al., 2018 [50].In vitroMAOCp Ti grade 4Milling Three point bending testIncreased bond strength compared to only sandblasted titanium surface
9Antanasova et al., 2020 [51].In vitroAirborne particle abrasion (APA) and bonding agentTi6Al4V
Ti6Al4V		Milling
SLM		Three point bending testIncreased bond strength
No difference between milled and slm-produced specimens
10Vuorinen et al., 2024 [52].In vitroSilver platingCp Ti grade 1Milling Three point bending testIncreased bond strength
11Hu, Ren, and Luo 2023 [53].In vitroSandblasting and gold platingCpTiSLMThree point bending testIncreased bond strength
12Svanborg et al., 2024 [54].In vitroGrinding and APATiAl6V4 ELI (Ti grade 23)
Cp Ti grade 4		Additive manufacturing
Milling 		Shear bond strength test by universal testing machineGrinding does not affect bond strength
13Fukuyama, Hamano, and Ino 2016 [55].In vitroSilica-coating (silica containing alumina powder, Rocatec Plus, 3MESPE) and bonding agentCp TiMilling Shear bond strength test by universal testing machineImproved bond strength
14Kumasaka et al., 2018 [56].In vitroUltraviolet irradiationCp Ti gr 2Milling Tensile bond testImproved bond strength
15Yang, Liang, and Liu 2025 [57].In vitroBiomimetic surface designTi6Al4V (TC4)Additive manufacturingBending tests in a universal testing machineSurface structure design may affect titanium–ceramic bond strength
16Curtis et al., 2015 [58].In vitroVita Titankeramik’s bonding agent in powder, paste, and sprayCp Ti grade 2Milling Three point bending testNot affecting titanium–ceramic bond strength
17Wang et al., 2020 [59]. In vitroPorcelain firing in vacuum, argon or heliumCp Ti grade 2Milling Three point bending testPorcelain firing in argon atmosphere significantly improves bond strength
18Antanasova et al., 2018 [60].In vitroThermomechanical cyclingCp Ti
Ti6Al4V
Ti6Al4V		Casting
Milling
SLM		Shear bond strengthDecreases bond strength
19Yong and Bo 2016 [61].In vitroThermomechanical cyclingCp Ti
Ti2448 		Milling Crack initiation test was performed using a universal testing machineDecreases bond strength
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tomova, Z.; Tomov, D.; Vlahova, A.; Kirova, G.; Uzunova, Y. Porcelain Fused to Titanium—Advantages and Challenges. Dent. J. 2025, 13, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090382

AMA Style

Tomova Z, Tomov D, Vlahova A, Kirova G, Uzunova Y. Porcelain Fused to Titanium—Advantages and Challenges. Dentistry Journal. 2025; 13(9):382. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090382

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tomova, Zlatina, Desislav Tomov, Angelina Vlahova, Gergana Kirova, and Yordanka Uzunova. 2025. "Porcelain Fused to Titanium—Advantages and Challenges" Dentistry Journal 13, no. 9: 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090382

APA Style

Tomova, Z., Tomov, D., Vlahova, A., Kirova, G., & Uzunova, Y. (2025). Porcelain Fused to Titanium—Advantages and Challenges. Dentistry Journal, 13(9), 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090382

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop