Vol. 11, Issue 3, Part B (2025)

Introduction: The use of restorative materials in dentistry is constantly growing, as they not only improve masticatory and esthetic function, but also directly intervene in the patient's quality of life.

Objective: To analyze restorative ceramic materials for fixed prostheses offering an overview of their resistance to degradation over time, their marginal adjustment and mechanical characteristics without forgetting to consider advantages and limitations according to the type of restoration and the patient's characteristics, such as feldspathic porcelains, leucite reinforced porcelains, silicate ceramics, zirconia and alumina.

Methodology: A systematic search was carried out in databases using the keywords “zirconia”, “yttria-stabilized zirconia” “Full-ceramic”, “lithium disilicate ceramic”, ‘porcelain’, “glass-ceramics”, “feldspathic ceramic”, “alumina”.

Results: Zirconia is identified as the ceramic used in oral rehabilitation with the highest strength support but with poor esthetics compared to other materials. Porcelain, in spite of standing out for its high esthetics, has a low resistance. Silicates represent a middle point, having a very good resistance (not higher than zirconia) and equally high esthetics (not higher than porcelain). Alumina is a dental ceramic that has practically fallen into disuse in the fabrication of fixed prostheses, although it is widely used as an abrasive.

Conclusion: Zirconia excels in strength for load-bearing restorations but lacks esthetics. Porcelain offers superior aesthetics yet requires reinforcement due to lower durability. Lithium disilicate balances strength, translucency, and biocompatibility, ideal for esthetic cases. Alumina is clinically obsolete, limited to abrasive applications. Material selection depends on functional and aesthetic demands.