Skip to content

How to Remove a Zirconia Crown: Burs, Sectioning Time and Protecting the Tooth

Sooner or later a zirconia crown has to come off: recurrent caries at the margin, a tooth that now needs endodontic treatment, a crown that never fully seated. Then the bur skates and dulls, the appointment runs long, and every extra pass risks gouging the preparation the replacement will need.

Below: why zirconia resists cutting, which burs cut it fastest in studies, a published sectioning technique, how to make the next removal easier, where lasers stand, and what to send the lab.

Key Takeaways

  • In one lab study, zirconia measured 1,641.7 HV hardness and 6.6 MPa·m½ fracture toughness, against 676.7 HV and 2.8 MPa·m½ for IPS e.max CAD.
  • Sectioning a 5Y zirconia crown took 130.4 seconds with a new zirconia diamond and 191.2 seconds when the same bur cut its third crown.
  • A single-use coarse diamond cut zirconia faster than three reusable burs, including one marketed for zirconia.
  • Cutting zirconia crowns on implants without water raised implant temperature by 18.76 °C on average, against 3.59 °C with irrigation.
  • In one laser study, 3Y zirconia crowns took 12.46 minutes to debond, 5Y crowns 4.03 minutes and e.max crowns 2.08 minutes.
  • Erbium lasers retrieved 50 of 52 ceramic abutments undamaged in one clinical series; most laser evidence is from lab studies.

Quick Answer

Section it rather than pulling it. With a new coarse or zirconia-specific diamond, copious water and light pressure, cut a slot from the mid-buccal margin across the occlusal surface (over the incisal edge on anterior teeth), through the zirconia but not into dentin, then torque a crown-splitting instrument in the slot. Lab studies put this at about 2 to 3 minutes per crown, and burs slow with each crown. Erbium lasers can debond some crowns intact.

Two zirconia posterior crowns
What makes monolithic zirconia durable in the mouth also makes it slow to cut.

Why Is Zirconia So Hard to Section?

Zirconia is harder and tougher than the other crown ceramics. In a 2016 lab study, a zirconia (Cercon) measured 1,641.7 HV Vickers hardness and 6.6 MPa·m½ fracture toughness; IPS e.max CAD measured 676.7 HV and 2.8 MPa·m½ (Homaei et al., 2016). An earlier study found feldspathic porcelains, the veneer of a PFM, under 2 MPa·m½, against 2.8 for lithium disilicate and 4.9 for zirconia (Quinn et al., 2003). On a PFM, the diamond only cuts the porcelain; a carbide bur then cuts the metal coping (Kurtzman, 2020).

Zirconia also wears the bur: in a crown-sectioning study, every diamond lost diamond particles with each crown (Borzangy et al., 2024). That study used 5Y zirconia; in a laser study, 3Y crowns took 12.46 minutes to remove against 4.03 for 5Y (Suliman et al., 2024). See types of zirconia.

Which Burs Cut Zirconia Fastest, and How Many Do You Need?

Few studies compare burs on zirconia, and setups differ; read each row as one lab result.

Bur Evidence Notes
Single-use coarse diamond (Piranha 837.012 coarse) Most efficient of four burs at every cut on a zirconia block (Keeling et al., 2023) No sterilization; the authors call single-use burs comparatively inexpensive
Zirconia diamond (Great White Z 856-018, SS White) Fastest on 5Y crowns for its first two uses, 130.4 s then 169.4 s; slowest on e.max (Borzangy et al., 2024) Manufacturer claims it reduces vibration and the risk of micro-fractures
Super coarse diamond (Komet 5856) 148.0 s on a 5Y crown; fastest on all three e.max crowns, from 96.2 s (Borzangy et al., 2024) Same 856 shape and size as the other two burs in that study
Medium coarse diamond (Komet 8856) Slowest on 5Y zirconia, 161.6 s for the first crown (Borzangy et al., 2024) Grit alone did not predict speed
Reusable zirconia cutter (Komet 4ZR) Less efficient than the single-use coarse diamond (Keeling et al., 2023) Komet recommends 160,000 rpm, at least 50 ml/min of coolant, no more than 2 N and a 45-degree angle
Zirconia-cutting tungsten carbide Every diamond tested cut zirconia more efficiently (Peters et al., 2019) Carbide still cuts the metal coping of a PFM
Natural vs synthetic diamond, same design Natural diamond removed 38.9% more zirconia over ten cuts (Kim et al., 2025) No difference on natural teeth

Every bur slowed with use. In the crown study, each bur sectioned three crowns: a new bur needed 130.4 to 161.6 s for a 5Y crown and 191.2 to 196.8 s on its third (Borzangy et al., 2024). Keeling's group concluded that single-use burs should be strongly considered for zirconia removal. Both point to a new bur for each zirconia crown, with a spare at hand. Across seven materials, including zirconium oxide, an electric handpiece cut more efficiently overall than an air turbine (Choi et al., 2010).

130 s

Average time to section one 5Y zirconia molar crown with a new zirconia diamond at 200,000 rpm in a dummy head (Borzangy et al., 2024).

Chart: seconds to section one crown with each of three diamond burs on its first, second and third crown; 5Y zirconia times ranged from 130.4 to 196.8 seconds, e.max from 96.2 to 189.2 seconds
Every bur slowed with each crown it cut, on both materials (Borzangy et al., 2024).

How Do You Section the Crown Without Damaging the Tooth?

A review of removal techniques calls cutting a slot and prying the crown loose the safest and least traumatic method, at the cost of the crown (Bajunaid, 2017). The steps below follow a technique article whose author was compensated by SS White, maker of the bur it names (Kurtzman, 2020).

1. Water and light pressure

The study crowns were cut with 40 mL/min of coolant (Borzangy et al., 2024). On implants, water protects bone: drilling through or sectioning zirconia crowns raised the implant temperature by 3.59 °C with irrigation and 18.76 °C without, and without irrigation the maximum exceeded the thermal injury threshold at the coronal aspect of the implant (Mason et al., 2014).

2. Buccal slot, then occlusal

Start mid-buccal at the margin and move the diamond parallel to its long axis in a sawing motion, rather than pushing it toward the center of the tooth. Check the slot often so it stops at dentin. Continue across the occlusal; on anterior crowns, carry it over the incisal edge, where it may need to be 3.0 mm deep or more (Kurtzman, 2020).

3. Split, do not grind off

Rotate a flat-bladed crown remover where the slots meet to split the crown; a composite instrument can break, and excessive force can fracture the tooth. If it will not split, deepen the slots to dentin, extend 2.0 to 3.0 mm onto the lingual, or relieve the crown interproximally. Bonded lithium disilicate may need an added mesiodistal slot, a plus-shaped cut, with segments split off one at a time. Under zirconia, the luting material often stays on the dentin and comes off during re-preparation (Kurtzman, 2020).

4. Protect the preparation

Even a controlled cut marks the tooth: on electron microscopy of one tooth per group, bur removal left cutting streaks and more open dentinal tubules than laser removal (Deeb et al., Materials 2022).

How Can You Make the Next Removal Easier?

Implant crowns

A screw-retained crown is unscrewed, not cut; see screw-retained vs. cement-retained implant crowns. If you cement, the cement matters. In a lab study of cast crowns on titanium abutments, glass-ionomer-cemented crowns were significantly easier to remove than polycarboxylate-cemented ones, and the authors call the glass ionomer semipermanent (Mehl et al., 2012). In another lab study, an Er,Cr:YSGG laser removed zirconia implant crowns in 2 min 40 s with non-eugenol zinc oxide cement, against 5 min 26 s with self-adhesive resin cement (Viski et al., 2025).

Tooth-supported crowns

Appropriate cement use on retentive preparations can help if a crown must later come off (Spath and Smith, 2017), and bonded glass-ceramics resist splitting more than zirconia (Kurtzman, 2020); see How to Cement Zirconia and Bond E.max. Richwil resin, ultrasonics and crown tractors are preferred for temporarily cemented restorations (Bajunaid, 2017), though ultrasonic vibration did not ease retrieval in the implant study above (Mehl et al., 2012).

Does Laser Debonding Work on Zirconia and E.max?

Erbium lasers are an emerging option. Their energy passes through the ceramic and is absorbed by water and residual monomer in the cement, which disintegrates so the crown lifts off intact (Deeb et al., Materials 2022).

Method Evidence Notes
Bur sectioning 114.2 s for prefabricated zirconia crowns on posterior teeth, against 288.5 s by laser (Deeb et al., Materials 2022) Destroys the crown and marks the dentin
Er:YAG laser, lab 2.08 min for e.max, 4.03 for 5Y, 10.30 for 4Y and 12.46 for 3Y crowns (Suliman et al., 2024) Thicker e.max took longer: 2 min 30 s to 4 min 45 s at 1 mm, 5 min to 11 min 15 s at 1.5 mm (Gozneli and Sendurur, 2023)
Erbium lasers, clinical 50 of 52 abutments retrieved without damage; zirconia crowns 7.12 min, lithium disilicate crowns 5.86 min (Deeb et al., 2023) Retrospective, 29 patients, two laser-certified clinicians; most poorly seated crowns were re-cemented
Er,Cr:YSGG laser, 7.5 W for 120 s Did not lower the pull-off force of bonded zirconia crowns (Jauregui-Ulloa et al., 2025) Caused microcracks and local phase transformation; judged not time efficient

Side effects are debated: one study found no significant change in zirconia's color, strength or hardness after Er:YAG debonding at 4 to 6 W (Zhang et al., 2024). A 2022 scoping review found every included study was ex vivo or simulated and called for clinical studies (Deeb et al., J Prosthodont 2022). The authors of the 2022 lab comparison call rotary removal a proven method and the laser a non-invasive alternative.

What Should You Send the Lab for the Replacement?

  • A new scan or impression after all residual cement is gone and the margin is refined.
  • Complete adjacent teeth and a bite recorded on both sides.
  • Why the old crown came off: caries, fracture, endodontic access, poor seating or esthetics.
  • The material and grade you want; if the old crown performed well, name its brand or grade.
  • A stump shade photo for translucent crowns; see shade matching with photos.
  • The pre-op scan of the old crown, if its shape should be copied.

To avoid a repeat, see Crown Remakes: What Really Causes Them.

Solid zirconia crowns with buccal porcelain
Name the zirconia grade or brand on the Rx.

Zirconia Crowns at Elegant Dental Laboratory

FAQ

What is the best bur for removing a zirconia crown?

In lab studies, a new zirconia-specific diamond or a single-use coarse diamond cut zirconia fastest; a carbide bur was least efficient.

How long does it take to section a zirconia crown?

About 130 to 197 seconds per 5Y molar crown in a dummy-head study, rising as the bur wears.

Why does my diamond stop cutting partway through?

Zirconia strips diamond particles from the bur. In one study, cutting efficiency fell by about 40% to 50% over ten cuts in zirconia.

Can a zirconia crown be removed without destroying it?

Sometimes, with an erbium laser: 50 of 52 abutments came off undamaged in one clinical series. 3Y crowns take longest, and lasers were not always faster than a bur.

Is sectioning a crown on an implant safe?

With irrigation, the implant warmed 3.59 °C on average in a lab study; without it, 18.76 °C. Always use water, or choose screw retention.

Should I cut e.max differently?

A super coarse diamond was fastest on e.max in one study, and bonded e.max may need an extra mesiodistal slot before it splits.

Sources (23)

  1. Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, Pow EHN. Static and fatigue mechanical behavior of three dental CAD/CAM ceramics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;59:304-313. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.01.023
  2. Quinn JB, Sundar V, Lloyd IK. Influence of microstructure and chemistry on the fracture toughness of dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003;19(7):603-611. doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00002-2
  3. Kurtzman GM. Solving Ceramic Crown Removal and Endo Access Challenges. Dentistry Today. December 1, 2020 (the author disclosed compensation from SS White). Article
  4. Borzangy S, et al. Cutting efficiency of different dental diamond rotary instruments for sectioning monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1135. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04901-7
  5. Kim DS, et al. Comparison of Cutting Efficiency Between Natural and Synthetic Diamond-Coated Burs on Zirconia and Natural Teeth. Materials (Basel). 2025;18(24):5623. doi:10.3390/ma18245623
  6. Keeling FL, Taft RM, Haney SJ. Bur Choice When Removing Zirconia Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2023;32(4):347-352. doi:10.1111/jopr.13564
  7. Komet. 4ZR Zirconia and All-Ceramic Crown remover, product page with recommendations for use (Komet UK), accessed October 1, 2026. Product page
  8. SS White Dental. Great White Z 881-016F, product page, accessed October 1, 2026. Product page
  9. Peters OA, Du D, Ho MY, Chu R, Moule A. Assessing the cutting efficiency of different burs on zirconia substrate. Aust Endod J. 2019;45(3):289-297. doi:10.1111/aej.12350
  10. Choi C, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. Comparison of cutting efficiencies between electric and air-turbine dental handpieces. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(2):101-107. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60013-3
  11. Bajunaid SO. Review of techniques for the intact removal of a permanently cemented restoration. Gen Dent. 2017;65(5):48-53. PubMed 28862589
  12. Mason AG, Sutton A, Turkyilmaz I. An investigation of heat transfer to the implant-bone interface when drilling through a zirconia crown attached to a titanium or zirconia abutment. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1119-1125. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.024
  13. Deeb JG, Crowell A, Richey KH, et al. In Vitro Study of Laser-Assisted Prefabricated Ceramic Crown Debonding as Compared to Traditional Rotary Instrument Removal. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(10):3617. doi:10.3390/ma15103617
  14. Mehl C, Harder S, Schwarz D, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. In vitro influence of ultrasonic stress, removal force preload and thermocycling on the retrievability of implant-retained crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(8):930-937. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02236.x
  15. Viski IS, Lee JD, Scialabba R, Lee SJ. Retrieval of cement-retained zirconia implant-supported crowns with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;134(2):444-449. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.013
  16. Spath A, Smith C. Removal of Modern Ceramics. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017;38(5):326-333. PubMed 28459251
  17. Suliman S, Sulaiman TA, Deeb JG, et al. Er:YAG laser debonding of zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(2):253.e1-253.e6. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.10.016
  18. Gozneli R, Sendurur T. Er:YAG laser lithium disilicate crown removal: removal time and pulpal temperature change. Lasers Med Sci. 2023;38(1):164. doi:10.1007/s10103-023-03832-z
  19. Deeb JG, Grzech-Lesniak K, Bencharit S. Evaluation of the effectiveness and practicality of erbium lasers for ceramic restoration removal: A retrospective clinical analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0295957. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295957
  20. Jauregui-Ulloa J, et al. Is high-power laser irradiation a time efficient method to debond zirconia restorations? Dent Mater. 2025;41(8):947-954. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2025.05.011
  21. Zhang X, Dong H, Wu X, Li Q, Zhao J, Guo C. Effects of Er:YAG laser debonding on changes in the properties of dental zirconia. PLoS One. 2024;19(11):e0313739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313739
  22. Deeb JG, Grzech-Leśniak K, Brody ER, Matys J, Bencharit S. Erbium laser-assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(9):e100-e124. doi:10.1111/jopr.13613
  23. Suliman S, Sulaiman T, Deeb JG, et al. Effect of Er:YAG laser on debonding zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns bonded with 2- and 1-bottle adhesive resin cements. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024;36(12):1687-1692. doi:10.1111/jerd.13274

Reviewed by Gary Fingerman, founder and CEO of Elegant Dental Laboratory, Brooklyn, New York (founded 2007). Last reviewed: October 1, 2026. Study values are from published research or manufacturer pages; techniques are those described by the cited authors, and lab times do not include clinical conditions.