Cosmetic Dental Materials Compared: e.max, Zirconia, Porcelain and Composite
Crowns and veneers are made from seven main materials, and each is best at something different. Here they are side by side, with the study numbers. For why a tooth needs a crown at all, see why do I need a crown. For how we plan and make them, see crowns and bridges.
There is no single best material. Solid lithium disilicate (e.max type), solid zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns all last about 97 to 98.5 percent of the time at 5 years.1 For veneers, e.max and feldspathic porcelain last about equally long, but e.max had far fewer chips and other problems.2 Composite costs less up front but failed about 3 to 4 times as often each year as ceramic in a 10-year practice study.3
- How to pick a material: the best one for the job
- Crown and veneer materials compared side by side
- Lithium disilicate (e.max): the all-rounder for front teeth
- Zirconia, solid and layered: strongest, with one big gap in the data
- Feldspathic porcelain: beautiful, thin and more fragile
- Composite resin: least tooth removed, most upkeep
- Metal-ceramic (PFM): reliable, but losing ground
- Gold: the least drilling, the least looks
- Questions about crown and veneer materials
- Sources
How to pick a material: the best one for the job
The four leading crown materials all last about 97 to 98.5 percent of the time at 5 years, so the choice comes down to the tooth, the bite and how much it shows.1
Labs and brands each pick a winner. The studies don't. My rule is simple: we use the best material for the job. A front tooth next to natural teeth has to match them. A molar on someone who grinds has to survive a lot of force. I don't use one house material for everything. For crowns, we place lithium disilicate (e.max type), solid zirconia, layered zirconia, metal-ceramic and gold, and the tooth decides which one.
- Where the tooth is. Front teeth are judged on looks, back teeth on strength.
- Your bite. Grinding raised the risk of veneer failure about 7.7 times in one long study,4 so grinders lean toward stronger materials and a night guard.
When the material isn't the real question: if your teeth are healthy and you mainly want them whiter or a little straighter, the answer may be whitening, bonding or clear aligners, with no crown or veneer at all.
Crown and veneer materials compared side by side
Survival numbers are close for most materials, and the bigger differences are in looks, chipping and how much tooth is removed.
Strength is given in plain terms because lab numbers vary by brand and test. Survival means still in the mouth, even if repaired.
| Lithium disilicate (e.max) | Solid (monolithic) zirconia | Layered zirconia | Feldspathic porcelain | Composite resin | Metal-ceramic (PFM) | Gold | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best uses | Front-tooth veneers and crowns, premolars | Molars, grinders, bridges | Front crowns and bridges that need strength and looks | Very thin veneers, small shape changes | Bonding, chips, gaps, trial changes | Bridges, back crowns, older work | Back molars that don't show |
| Look and translucency | Very natural, lifelike translucency | Good and improving, more opaque | Very good (porcelain on the outside) | Excellent in skilled hands | Good at first, can stain and dull | Good, but can show a dark line at the gum | Gold color |
| Strength | High | Highest of the tooth-colored options | Strong core, weaker outer layer | Lowest of the ceramics | Lowest | High | Very high, bends instead of cracking |
| Chipping | Low. Veneer technical problems about 6% at 10 years2 | Lowest. Solid crowns chipped less than layered1 | Main weak point: the outer porcelain can chip | Higher. Veneer technical problems about 41% at 10 years2 | Chips and wears, but easy to fix | Porcelain can chip off the metal | Doesn't chip |
| Tooth removed | Small for veneers, moderate for crowns | Small to moderate (strong when thin) | More (room for core plus porcelain) | Smallest of the ceramic veneers | Often none or very little | The most | The least of any full crown |
| Repairability | Small chips can be polished or patched | Hard to repair or adjust, hard to remove | Chips can sometimes be patched | Small chips can be patched | Easiest, often same visit | Chips patched, often replaced | Rarely needs repair |
| Survival (studies) | Crowns 98.5% at 5 years1. Veneers 96.8% at about 10 years2. 99.6% of crowns at 10 years in one practice5 | Crowns 96.8% at 5 years1. Veneers: no long-term data2 | Crowns 97.3% at 5 years1. Older mostly layered zirconia 92.1%6 | Veneers 96.1% at about 10 years2. Crowns 90.4% at 5 years1 | Veneers 88% at 2 to 8 years7. Failed 4.1% per year vs 1.2% for ceramic3 | Crowns 97.1% at 5 years1. 94.7% in an older review6 | Long track record, but not in the reviews used here |
Survival hides a lot. e.max and feldspathic veneers lasted about the same, but feldspathic ones needed attention far more often.2 See why lifespan numbers disagree.
Lithium disilicate (e.max): the all-rounder for front teeth
About 98.5 percent of solid lithium disilicate crowns lasted 5 years, the best figure for any crown material in the newest review.1
Lithium disilicate is a glass-ceramic, and e.max is the best-known brand. It lets light in the way enamel does and bonds very well to enamel. As e.max veneers, about 97 percent were still in place at about 10 years, with only about 6 percent having technical problems.2 In one private practice, about 99.6 percent of pressed e.max crowns were estimated to last 10 years, and 5 of the 7 failures were on molars.5
That is one reason solid zirconia is often considered for back teeth in people who grind heavily. For most of my porcelain veneers, lithium disilicate is the right choice, made by a ceramist at Dynamic Dental Solutions, but it is still a tooth-by-tooth decision.
Zirconia, solid and layered: strongest, with one big gap in the data
Solid zirconia crowns lasted about 96.8 percent at 5 years, but zirconia veneers have only about 2.6 years of data so far.1,2
Solid (monolithic) zirconia is one piece, very hard to break and the usual choice for molars and grinders. Layered zirconia has porcelain baked over a zirconia core for better looks, and that layer is where chips happen. Crowns made from one solid piece of lithium disilicate or zirconia chipped and fractured significantly less often than layered crowns1.
Zirconia's reputation has changed. A 2015 review found about 92 percent 5-year survival for mostly layered zirconia crowns.6 The 2026 review, with newer solid zirconia, found 96.8 percent.1 Older warnings about zirconia mostly describe the layered kind.
Zirconia veneers are a different story. Zirconia veneers had no failures or complications in the studies available, but those studies only lasted about 2.6 years, so there is no long-term data yet2. A small 3-year trial of 60 veneers in 12 patients found no significant difference between e.max and high-translucency zirconia veneers, though e.max looked somewhat better for esthetics and translucency8. It is also harder to bond and to remove later. For now, materials with a decade or more of veneer data have the stronger track record.
e.max crown vs zirconia, in one line: e.max usually looks better and has the best 5-year number; zirconia is stronger and the safer pick for a molar under heavy force.1
Feldspathic porcelain: beautiful, thin and more fragile
Feldspathic porcelain veneers lasted about 96 percent at 10 years, but about 41 percent had technical problems along the way.2
Feldspathic porcelain is the traditional veneer material, built up by hand in thin layers. In skilled hands it can be the most lifelike option. The trade-off is strength. For crowns, feldspathic had the lowest 5-year survival of any material in the newest review, about 90.4 percent.1
It still has a place for very thin veneers in people who don't grind. Otherwise, lithium disilicate gives a similar look with far fewer problems.2
Composite resin: least tooth removed, most upkeep
Composite veneers failed at about 4.1 percent per year, compared with 1.2 percent for ceramic, in one practice over 10 years.3
Composite is the resin used for bonding. It is shaped on the tooth, usually in one visit, often with little or no drilling, and it is the easiest material to repair. A 2023 review of randomized trials found that about 88 percent of composite veneers were still in place over follow-ups of about 2 to 8 years, with direct (chairside) composite doing better than lab-made composite7.
The main downsides are staining, loss of shine and chipping over time. When composite was placed to improve appearance, failures for color, shape or staining were more common than when it was placed to fix decay or damage9. For a small change or a trial run before porcelain, composite is often the smartest first step. The full trade-off is in porcelain vs composite veneers and veneers vs bonding.
Metal-ceramic (PFM): reliable, but losing ground
Metal-ceramic crowns lasted about 97.1 percent at 5 years, nearly the same as the best all-ceramic crowns.1
Porcelain fused to metal was the standard crown for decades and still lasts well. The metal blocks light, so these crowns can look flat, and it can show as a gray line if the gum recedes. It also takes the most drilling of any crown, since it needs room for metal plus porcelain. Today, solid zirconia and lithium disilicate do most of what PFM did, with better looks and often less drilling.
Gold: the least drilling, the least looks
Gold needs the least tooth removed of any full crown and almost never chips, but most people don't want it to show.
Gold is tough, gentle on opposing teeth and can be made thin. The reviews used here didn't pool gold, so we give no survival number, but its long track record keeps it in use for back molars.
See real cases in our before and after gallery.
Need a crown or a bridge in Jacksonville?See how Dr. Henley plans lab-made crowns and bridges, and how he matches the material to the tooth, your bite and how much the tooth shows.
Crowns and bridgesQuestions about crown and veneer materials
What is the best material for a dental crown?
It depends on the tooth. For a front tooth, solid lithium disilicate (e.max type) usually looks best and lasted about 98.5 percent at 5 years.1 For a molar in someone who grinds, solid zirconia or gold is often safer. See crowns and bridges.
Which is better, e.max or zirconia crowns?
Neither wins everywhere. Solid e.max crowns lasted about 98.5 percent and solid zirconia about 96.8 percent at 5 years.1 e.max usually looks more natural. Zirconia is the strongest tooth-colored material and is often chosen for back teeth and grinders.
Are zirconia veneers better than e.max veneers?
Not proven. Zirconia veneers had no failures in the studies so far, but those only lasted about 2.6 years.2 A small 3-year trial of 60 veneers found no significant difference, though e.max looked somewhat better.8 e.max veneers have about 10 years of data behind them.2
Which crown material looks most natural?
Lithium disilicate (e.max type) and layered porcelain usually look most natural because light passes into them the way it passes into enamel. In one trial, e.max veneers rated somewhat better than translucent zirconia for looks.8
Why is there a dark line at the gum on my crown?
That is usually the metal inside a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crown showing at the edge, often after the gum pulls back a little. It is a cosmetic problem, not a failure. Replacing the crown with an all-ceramic one is the usual fix if it bothers you.
Are gold crowns still used?
Yes, though less often. Gold needs the least tooth removed of any full crown and rarely breaks, so it still shows up on back molars that don't show.
How long do e.max veneers last?
In a 2025 review of 29 studies, about 97 percent of lithium disilicate veneers were still in place at about 10 years, and only about 6 percent had technical problems such as chipping.2 See how long veneers last.
Does the material change how much tooth is removed?
Yes, but the design matters more. Crown preparations removed about 63 to 72 percent of the tooth's crown in a lab study, compared with about 3 to 30 percent for veneer designs.10 See how much tooth is removed.
More from the Cosmetic Dentistry Guide
Sources
- Pjetursson BE, Pitta J, Balet A, Bjarnadottir GR, Sailer I, Romandini P. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Evaluating the Survival, Failure, and Complication Rates of Metal-Ceramic, Veneered, and Monolithic All-Ceramic Tooth-Supported Single Crowns, Part 1. Int J Prosthodont 2026;39(3):308-324. doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9633
- Klein P, Spitznagel FA, Zembic A, Prott LS, Pieralli S, Bongaerts B, Metzendorf MI, Langner R, Gierthmuehlen PC. Survival and Complication Rates of Feldspathic, Leucite-Reinforced, Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramic Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent 2025;37(3):601-619. doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13351
- Mazzetti T, Collares K, Rodolfo B, da Rosa Rodolpho PA, van de Sande FH, Cenci MS. 10-year practice-based evaluation of ceramic and direct composite veneers. Dent Mater 2022;38(5):898-906. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.03.007
- Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(1):79-85. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22259802/
- Malament KA, Natto ZS, Thompson V, Rekow D, Eckert S, Weber HP. Ten-year survival of pressed, acid-etched e.max lithium disilicate monolithic and bilayered complete-coverage restorations: Performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position and age. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(5):782-790. doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.024
- Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015;31(6):603-23. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011
- Lim TW, Tan SK, Li KY, Burrow MF. Survival and complication rates of resin composite laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2023;23(4):101911. doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101911
- Fawakhiri HA, Abboud S, Kanout S. A 3-year controlled clinical trial comparing high-translucency zirconia (cubic zirconia) with lithium disilicate glass ceramic (e.max). Clin Exp Dent Res 2023;9(6):1078-1088. doi.org/10.1002/cre2.790
- Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater 2015;31(10):1214-24. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.005
- Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):503-9. doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.124094
Every number in this guide comes from one list of studies that Dr. Henley reviews. See how we choose and check sources.
This guide is general education, not a diagnosis. The right choice for your teeth depends on an exam.
Talk with Dr. Henley about your smile
Dr. Henley sees every patient himself. Bring your questions, and he will look at your teeth and walk you through the options that fit them.