Table 1.

Comparison of fracture load values between polished and overglazed ceramic plates of several ceramic materials.

Material	Ceramic type (chemical components)	Fracture load values (N; mean ± SD)
		Polished ceramic plates	Overglazed ceramic plates
Vita Mark II	Fine particle feldspar ceramic (SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, K2O, CaO, TiO2)	591.3 ± 114.9	684.2 ± 152.5
ProCAD	Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (SiO2, BaO, Al2O3, CaO, CeO2, Na2O, K2O, B2O3, TiO2)	820.2 ± 210.2	818.1 ± 160.6
IPS Empress CAD	Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (SiO2, BaO, Al2O3, CaO, CeO2, Na2O, K2O, B2O3, TiO2)	858.1 ± 121.9	892.8 ± 123.1
IPS e.max CAD	Lithium disilicate glass ceramic (SiO2, Li2O, K2O, P2O5, ZrO2, ZnO, Al2O3, MgO)	1,107.9 ± 220.8	1,200.5 ± 304.0