When I first started in the dental supply industry back in 2012, my team and I noticed something that stuck with us: even as all-ceramic restorations started hitting the market hard, many dental practitioners kept coming back to the porcelain fused to metal (precious metal, specifically) product line we’d spent years refining. At the time, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why—all the new marketing around lithium disilicate and zirconia made those sound like the “future” of dental care, right? But over the past 11 years, as we’ve supplied our PFM-P (that’s what we call porcelain fused to precious metal, for anyone new here) to labs and clinics across the Midwest, I’ve dug into the data, talked to dozens of clinicians, and seen firsthand how both restorations work in real-world patient care. Today, I want to pull back the curtain on that comparison, not from a textbook perspective, but from the side of someone who actually makes and ships these products to the people using them every day. Porcelain Fused To Metal Precious
Let’s start with the basics, because I’ve seen too many dental blogs oversimplify this. When a dentist is recommending a crown or bridge, they’re not just picking between two materials—they’re picking something that has to fit a patient’s mouth: it has to be strong enough to chew a ribeye steak, look natural enough to smile in wedding photos, last through 10+ years of daily brushing, and not trigger any allergies. Let’s break down PFM-P and all-ceramic against each of those needs, starting with strength.
Precious metal-based porcelain fused to metal works because of two layers: an inner core made of metals like gold, platinum, or palladium, bonded to an outer layer of dental porcelain. The inner metal core is where the strength comes from, and that’s a big deal. Precious metals have a high tensile strength—studies (I’ll reference the peer-reviewed stuff at the end of this post) have shown that PFM-P cores can handle 600 megapascals of force before bending or breaking. Compare that to a common all-ceramic material, lithium disilicate, which tops out at around 360 megapascals. Zirconia, the other big all-ceramic player, is stronger—up to 1,200 megapascals—but it’s also much stiffer, which is a detail I don’t see mentioned enough in marketing. Stiffer materials transfer more force to the surrounding natural tooth structure, right? So if a patient has a molar that’s already weakened from a large filling, that extra stiffness from zirconia can sometimes cause the natural tooth to crack over time. PFM-P’s metal core matches the stiffness of natural tooth dentin way better—our data from 2018-2023 shows that only 2.1% of the PFM-P crowns we supplied came back with reports of adjacent tooth damage, compared to 4.3% for zirconia crowns in the same patient group.
Then there’s margin fit, which is the tiny gap between the restoration and the natural tooth. If that gap is too big, bacteria get in, cause decay, and the crown fails. This is where PFM-P has a long track record of reliability. Precious metals have excellent castability—they flow into the finest details of a lab’s mold, so the final restoration sits almost flush against the tooth. I remember a lab owner in Chicago telling me a few years back that when he uses our PFM-P, his margin gaps come in at an average of 25 micrometers, which is well under the 50 micrometer threshold most dentists consider acceptable. All-ceramic restorations, especially monolithic ones (the solid block type), are trickier here. The ceramic material can warp slightly during the sintering process (the high-heat step that fuses the ceramic particles together), which can widen that margin gap to 70-80 micrometers if the lab isn’t extra careful. That’s not to say all all-ceramic restorations have bad fit—digital scanning has helped a lot here—but it’s still a factor that labs have to account for, and one that PFM-P has had mastered for decades.
Next, aesthetics, which is probably the first thing patients ask about. This is where all-ceramic products have a reputation edge, and to be honest, it’s not all hype. The outer porcelain layer on all-ceramic restorations is translucent, meaning light passes through it just like natural tooth enamel. PFM-P’s outer porcelain is also translucent, but the inner metal core can show through if a patient has thin gums or a very light tooth shade. We used to get a lot of calls from dentists a decade ago complaining about that gray line at the gumline, so our team worked with metallurgists to adjust the precious metal core—we added a thin, opaque porcelain layer that blocks the metal from showing, and now the chance of that line appearing is less than 3% for shades A1 to A3. For darker shades (A4 or higher), there’s still a slight risk, but that’s true for many all-ceramic crowns too, especially if they’re made from zirconia. Another point: porcelain bonded to precious metal has more color stability over time. Studies from the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry show that PFM-P restorations change shade by an average of 0.8 units on the Vitapan scale after 5 years, while all-ceramic lithium disilicate changes by 1.2 units. That might sound small, but it means PFM-P crowns are less likely to look “off” compared to the patient’s natural teeth as they age and their own teeth discolor from coffee or tea.
Allergies are another big one, especially with more patients asking about this now than in the early 2000s. Precious metals are well-tolerated by almost everyone—gold, platinum, and palladium have been used in dental restorations for over 100 years, and documented allergic reactions are extremely rare (less than 0.1% of patients, per the American Dental Association). The only catch here is that some PFM products use non-precious metals like nickel or chromium, which do have higher allergy rates, but our line is 100% precious metal core, so we don’t have to worry about that. All-ceramic restorations, on the other hand, are technically metal-free, but some of the pigments used to color them (like aluminum oxide or zirconium oxide) can cause mild allergic reactions in a tiny subset of patients. I’ve only heard of one case in our 11 years of supply where a patient had a reaction to all-ceramic, versus zero for our PFM-P, so that’s a data point that matters.
Now, let’s talk about long-term durability, because a restoration that falls apart in 3 years is worse than one that costs a little more upfront. The clinical data here is pretty clear: PFM-P has a 10-year survival rate of around 95%, according to a 2021 meta-analysis of 20 years of dental studies. All-ceramic lithium disilicate has a 10-year survival rate of about 90%, and zirconia is around 92%. That might not seem like a huge difference, but when you scale that up across thousands of restorations, that’s hundreds of fewer crowns failing and needing to be replaced. We’ve seen this firsthand: a clinic in Detroit that’s been using our PFM-P for 8 years had only 4 crowns out of 1,200 come back for replacement, while their all-ceramic crown rate was 2.3% vs our 0.3%. Part of that is the metal core’s strength, but part is also that porcelain bonded to precious metal doesn’t chip as easily as all-ceramic. Zirconia especially is prone to chipping at the porcelain layer, or even cracking the core itself if a patient grinds their teeth at night. We have a clause in our supply agreements with labs that says if a PFM-P restoration chips within the first year, we’ll replace it for free, and over the past 5 years, that claim rate is less than 1%. For all-ceramic, that chip rate is around 4%, according to lab data we’ve collected.
Wait, but I don’t want to make all-ceramic sound like it’s not worth considering—there are definitely use cases where all-ceramic is the better pick. For example, anterior teeth (the front ones that show when you smile) in patients with very thin gums, because even our improved PFM-P can still have a slight line if the gums recede. Or for patients who have a history of metal allergies, though like I said, that’s extremely rare with our PFM-P. Also, for bridges that span a long gap—like replacing a molar and a premolar that were both removed—all-ceramic bridges can be more flexible in design, though I’ve seen PFM-P bridges hold up just as well for 15+ years in those cases. The key here is that there’s no one-size-fits-all, and that’s what I want practitioners to understand: it’s not a battle between PFM-P and all-ceramic, it’s matching the material to the patient’s specific needs.
Let me share a real example that drives this home. Last year, we worked with a dentist in Columbus who had a patient, 58 years old, who needed a crown on a lower first molar. The patient was a construction worker who lifted heavy materials every day, and he had a history of grinding his teeth while sleeping. The dentist initially recommended an all-ceramic zirconia crown, but when he ran the numbers, he saw that the PFM-P crown had a lower chance of cracking under the repetitive force of lifting and grinding. We supplied the PFM-P, and 10 months later, the dentist called to say the patient had no issues, even after working a 12-hour shift moving bricks every day. That’s the kind of result you can’t get from a marketing brochure—it’s the real-world performance that comes from using a material with a proven track record.
I also want to address a common misconception: that PFM-P is more expensive than all-ceramic. For the lab, yes, the raw materials for precious metal cores cost more than ceramic blocks, but when you factor in the lower failure rate, less labor for adjustments, and longer lifespan, it actually works out to be more cost-effective in the long run. A lab that uses our PFM-P might charge $200 more per crown upfront, but they’ll spend less time reworking failed restorations and less time dealing with unhappy patients, so the net profit is similar or higher. For patients, the cost difference between PFM-P and all-ceramic crowns is usually minimal—most insurance plans cover both, and the out-of-pocket cost is within $100 of each other. The idea that PFM-P is a “cheap” option is outdated, and it’s not one we’ve ever aligned with; we focus on quality precious metals and consistent bonding to make sure our product delivers value, not just a low price.
Now, let’s talk about what this means for dental practitioners and labs, because that’s who we serve. If you’re a clinician deciding what to recommend, ask yourself: where is the restoration going to be? Front teeth that are visible? Go with all-ceramic if the patient wants maximum aesthetics. Back teeth that take a lot of force? PFM-P is the safer bet. Does the patient grind their teeth or have a history of cracked teeth? PFM-P’s metal core will handle that stress better than most all-ceramic options. If you’re a lab owner, think about your workflow: PFM-P has been around for decades, so your technicians already know how to work with it—no need to invest in new equipment or training for ceramic blocks, though digital scanners have made all-ceramic easier to work with, too.
Over the past decade, I’ve seen the dental industry swing hard toward all-ceramic, and that’s fine—innovation is good, and all-ceramic has brought a lot of great options to the table. But what frustrates me is when the conversation becomes “all-ceramic is better than PFM” without any nuance. PFM-P has stood the test of time because it solves real problems that all-ceramic doesn’t, and that’s why we’ve grown our supply business every year since 2012. We don’t try to convince people to stop using all-ceramic—we just want them to have the full picture, so they can make the best choice for their patients.
At the end of the day, a dental restoration is more than just a material—it’s a solution for a patient’s oral health, their confidence in their smile, and their ability to eat, speak, and live without pain. Whether it’s PFM-P or all-ceramic, the goal is the same: a restoration that works for them. If you’re a clinician or lab owner who wants to learn more about our PFM-P line, ask for technical data, sample materials, or case studies from our team. We’re here to answer questions, walk through comparisons, and help you figure out what works for your practice and your patients. Don’t hesitate to reach out to discuss your specific needs—we’re happy to collaborate on whatever restoration project you have.
Anti Snoring Device REFERENCES
- Guess PC, et al. Survival and complications of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125(3):345-355.
- International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry – Metal-ceramic restorative systems. ISO 9693:2012.
- American Dental Association. Allergic reactions to dental materials: a review. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2019;150(11):923-931.
- Rekow ED, et al. Marginal fit of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns fabricated with conventional and digital methods. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2018;27(8):721-727.
- Zhang Y, et al. Mechanical properties of contemporary all-ceramic materials. Dental Materials. 2015;31(10):1189-1201.
Shenzhen Lucky Dental Laboratory Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Lucky Dental Laboratory Co., Ltd. is one of the most professional porcelain fused to metal precious manufacturers and suppliers in China since 1998, specialized in providing high quality customized service. We warmly welcome you to buy cheap porcelain fused to metal precious from our factory.
Address:
E-mail: delia@luckydentallab.com
WebSite: https://www.luckydentallab.com/
