In 2015, a systematic review of tooth-supported single crowns found 5-year survival of 96.6% (95% CI 94.9 to 96.7%) for leucite or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass-ceramic crowns, in a category that includes E.max, the best-known lithium disilicate brand. That was higher than metal-ceramic (94.7%) and densely sintered zirconia (92.1%) in the same review, and glass-ceramic performed similarly in front and back teeth (Sailer et al., Dental Materials, 2015).

E.max is a brand name, and the research rarely uses it. Studies group crowns by material type, so what follows is evidence about lithium disilicate and its glass-ceramic family, applied to E.max with that caveat. This guide covers how glass-ceramic crowns perform on natural teeth and implants, how they compare with zirconia and PFM, where the evidence is thin, and what to ask.

Key Takeaways A 2015 review of 67 studies found glass-ceramic crowns (leucite or lithium disilicate) had 96.6% five-year survival on natural teeth, with similar results in front and back teeth. A 2021 meta-analysis found monolithic glass-ceramic implant crowns had 97.0% three-year survival, not significantly different from zirconia (96.1%). No head-to-head pooled comparison of E.max and zirconia exists.

How Well Do E.max and Glass-Ceramic Crowns Perform?

Well, in the studies reviewed. In the 2015 review of 67 studies, covering 14,097 crowns, glass-ceramic crowns had a 5-year survival of 96.6% on natural teeth, a figure that includes leucite-reinforced as well as lithium disilicate material. The authors found survival of most all-ceramic crowns similar to metal-ceramic and noted that weaker feldspathic ceramics should be limited to front teeth (Sailer et al., Dental Materials, 2015).

On implants, a 2021 meta-analysis of 49 studies estimated 3-year survival of 97.0% (95% CI 94.0 to 98.5%) for monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic and 97.6% (95% CI 87.0 to 99.6%) for veneered reinforced glass-ceramic. Material differences weren’t significant apart from resin-matrix ceramic, and anterior or posterior location didn’t change survival or chipping (Pjetursson et al., Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2021).

Glass-Ceramic Crown Survival Across Reviews Dot plot with 95 percent confidence intervals on an 85 to 100 percent axis. Leucite or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass-ceramic on natural teeth, 5-year survival: 96.6 percent (94.9 to 96.7), Sailer 2015. Monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic on implants, 3-year survival: 97.0 percent (94.0 to 98.5), Pjetursson 2021. Veneered reinforced glass-ceramic on implants, 3-year survival: 97.6 percent (87.0 to 99.6), Pjetursson 2021. Time points and settings differ, so values are not directly comparable. 85% 90% 95% 100% Natural teeth, 5 years Implant, monolithic, 3 yrs Implant, veneered, 3 yrs Settings and time points differ. The 5-year interval is as reported, 94.9 to 96.7 (96.6 sits at its upper edge).
All three estimates sit at about 96.5 to 97.5%, though the veneered implant estimate carries a wide interval.

[CITATION CAPSULE] A 2015 systematic review of 67 studies found leucite or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass-ceramic crowns on natural teeth had 96.6% five-year survival, above metal-ceramic (94.7%) and zirconia (92.1%), and a 2021 meta-analysis put monolithic glass-ceramic implant crowns at 97.0% three-year survival (Sailer et al., Dental Materials, 2015; Pjetursson et al., Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2021).

How Does E.max Compare With Zirconia?

Indirectly, and without a proven winner. The 2021 meta-analysis found monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic at 97.0% (94.0 to 98.5%) and monolithic zirconia at 96.1% (93.4 to 97.8%), with overlapping intervals and no significant difference. In the 2015 review on natural teeth, zirconia’s survival was lower, 92.1%, but that review was published before solid zirconia crowns had much follow-up, as the zirconia crown guide explains.

No review pooled E.max against zirconia directly. So the honest answer to “which is better?” is that both survive well, the choice often comes down to appearance, thickness available, bite forces, and fabrication method, and the research doesn’t yet crown a winner. The chipping data point in one direction for solid designs: monolithic crowns chipped 0.39% a year against 1.65% for veneered ones in the 2021 meta-analysis.

Solid vs. Layered Ceramic Crowns: Annual Chipping Bar chart. Estimated annual ceramic chipping in implant-supported single crowns: veneered crowns 1.65 percent per year, monolithic crowns 0.39 percent per year, a significant difference (p equals 0.017). Data pool all ceramic types by design, so it applies to glass-ceramic and zirconia together. Source: Pjetursson et al., Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2021. Veneered (layered) 1.65% a year Monolithic (solid) 0.39% a year All ceramic types pooled by design, implant-supported crowns
Design may matter more than the glass-ceramic versus zirconia label, since solid crowns chipped far less than layered ones.
A clear dental model of teeth on a clinic table

How Does E.max Compare With PFM?

Similar on survival, with some signs of fewer complications over longer follow-up. In the 2015 review, glass-ceramic (96.6%) sat slightly above metal-ceramic (94.7%) on natural teeth. For three-unit bridges, a Cochrane review compared lithium disilicate with metal-ceramic in 37 participants and found no clear difference in failure at 1 or 6 years, with some evidence favoring lithium disilicate for complications at 6 years (Poggio et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017).

That Cochrane finding concerns bridges, not single crowns, involves only 37 people, and was rated very low quality. It’s a suggestion, not proof. The PFM crown guide covers where metal-ceramic holds up and where it doesn’t.

[UNIQUE INSIGHT] The three most common crown materials show survival in a narrow band, roughly 92% to 97% in the tooth-supported review, and the reviews rarely separate them with statistical confidence. What differs in practice is how each fails. Glass-ceramic crowns are tied to thickness and fit, zirconia to material fracture, and metal-ceramic to chipping and appearance, so the useful question is which failure mode matters for this tooth.

When Do E.max Crowns Fit?

For tooth-supported single crowns where appearance and conservative preparation matter, and for chairside milling workflows. These are general uses, not findings of the reviews above. The CEREC crown guide covers how lithium disilicate performs when milled chairside for implant crowns, including the material-by-material data.

One specialist use has direct support. A 2020 systematic review of endocrowns, which restore root-filled teeth with a single bonded piece, found lithium disilicate glass-ceramic stood out among materials, alongside nanofilled composite, and concluded endocrowns are a reliable alternative to post-retained restorations for molars (Govare and Contrepois, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2020). The root canal crown guide covers that situation.

[PERSONAL EXPERIENCE] Patients usually ask whether E.max is “better than zirconia.” The reply that helps is that they are different tools. How much natural tooth is left, how heavy the bite is, and what the crown needs to look like at the gum line decide it, and sometimes the answer differs between neighboring teeth.

What Does E.max Cost in Dubai?

On one clinic’s published list read in October 2026, E-max was AED 1,000, between PFM at AED 800 and zirconia at AED 1,500, though prices across clinics varied more than prices across materials (Zavis, Dental Crown Cost in Dubai, prices read October 2026). The crown cost guide explains the spread and what a quote should include.

Isn’t the more useful comparison between clinics for the same material? Ask whether the crown is monolithic or layered, who makes it, and what the quote includes if it chips. For survival numbers across materials, see how long dental crowns last.

[ORIGINAL DATA] We’re evaluating recording, in general terms, how often patients in this practice are offered lithium disilicate versus zirconia and what drove the choice, without publishing a figure until it’s properly documented across a larger patient base.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an E.max crown made of?

E.max is a brand of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Studies group it with other reinforced glass-ceramics, so evidence about the material family stands in for the brand.

Is E.max stronger than zirconia?

Not clearly. A 2021 meta-analysis found monolithic glass-ceramic implant crowns at 97.0% and monolithic zirconia at 96.1% three-year survival, with no significant difference. No review pooled them head to head.

Can E.max be used on back teeth?

The 2015 review found glass-ceramic crowns performed similarly in front and back teeth, and a 2021 meta-analysis found location didn’t affect survival or chipping for implant crowns. Bite and thickness still matter.

How long do E.max crowns last?

Studies report survival, not lifespan. Glass-ceramic crowns had 96.6% survival at 5 years on natural teeth, and none of the reviews here reports 10-year data. See the crown survival guide.

How much does an E.max crown cost in Dubai?

One clinic’s list in October 2026 showed E-max at AED 1,000, with zirconia at AED 1,500 and PFM at AED 800. Clinic-to-clinic differences were larger than material differences.

Conclusion

E.max and the glass-ceramic family have strong survival evidence on natural teeth and implants, similar to zirconia and metal-ceramic, with no head-to-head winner. The material is a good fit when appearance, conservative preparation, and chairside workflows matter.

The practical step is to ask what is being used, how thick it will be, and how your bite was assessed. For the tooth-supported question of whether a crown is needed at all, see Crown or Veneer: How Much Tooth Does Each One Take?

Sources