To assess the fracture resistance of single‐tooth implant‐supported crown restorations made with different CAD/CAM blocks.

Thirty‐six titanium abutments were put on dental implant analogs (Mis Implant). For each of three test groups (n = 12/group), implant‐supported, cement‐retained mandibular molar single crowns were produced. Crowns were made of lithium disilicate glass (LD) IPS e.max CAD, feldspathic glass ceramic (FEL) Vita Mark II, and resin nano‐ceramic (RNC) Lava Ultimate. The crowns were cemented with self‐adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem 2. After chewing cycling, crowns were tested to failure in a universal testing machine. Fracture values were calculated as initial (F‐initial) and maximum fracture (F‐max).

The study groups were ranked, in order of having highest value, (LD > FEL) > RNC for F‐initial load value and (LD > RNC) > FEL for F‐max load value. This demonstrated that there was no parallel change in the F‐initial and F‐max values presenting the fracture resistance of specimens.

There was no accordance between the F‐initial and F‐max values of the LD, RNC, and FEL after chewing simulation with thermocycling resembling 5 years of clinical functional use. LD had the highest fracture resistance during the fracture test. RNC had low fracture resistance; however, it had considerably high fracture resistance during the fracture test. FEL had considerably low fracture resistance values.