Dental zirconias have been broadly utilized in dentistry due to their high mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Although initially introduced in dentistry as an infrastructure material, the high rate of technical complications related to veneered porcelain has led to significant efforts to improve the optical properties of dental zirconias, allowing for its monolithic indication. Modifications in the composition, processing methods/parameters, and the increase in the yttrium content and cubic phase have been presented as viable options to improve zirconias’ translucency. However, concerns regarding the hydrothermal stability of partially stabilized zirconia and the trade-off observed between optical and mechanical properties resulting from the increased cubic content remain issues of concern. While the significant developments in polycrystalline ceramics have led to a wide diversity of zirconia materials with different compositions, properties, and clinical indications, the implementation of strong, esthetic, and sufficiently stable materials for long-span fixed dental prostheses has not been completely achieved. Alternatives, including advanced polycrystalline composites, functionally graded structures, and nanosized zirconia, have been proposed as promising pathways to obtain high-strength, hydrothermally stable biomaterials. Considering the evolution of zirconia ceramics in dentistry, this manuscript aims to present a critical perspective as well as an update to previous classifications of dental restorative ceramics, focusing on polycrystalline ceramics, their properties, indications, and performance.

To evaluate Ti-Base abutment height and cement type on the retentiveness of zirconia-based restorations. Four millimeter (tall) and 2.5-mm-height (short) abutments along with temporary (provisional), glass ionomer (Meron), self-adhesive (U200), and conventional resin cement (Ultimate) were evaluated using pull-out testing (n = 10 crowns/group). Tall and short abutments demonstrated similar retention for all within cement comparisons, except U200 (P = 0.032). Resin cements exhibited superior retentiveness than others (P < 0.01). Although no significant difference was evidenced between resin cements for short abutments, Ultimate evidenced higher retention than U200 for tall abutments (P = 0.043). Although Ti-Base abutment height has not influenced zirconia superstructures' retentiveness, resin-based cements significantly evidenced higher retention than glass ionomer and temporary cements.