Literature DB >> 15523338

Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain.

Michael D Wright1, Radi Masri, Carl F Driscoll, Elaine Romberg, Geoffrey A Thompson, Dennis A Runyan.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: With the introduction of newer dental porcelains, there exists the need to evaluate different porcelain polishing systems available on the market.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface roughness produced by 3 different porcelain polishing systems on an ultra-low fusing porcelain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-three ultra-low fusing porcelain (Finesse) discs (10 x 2 mm) were fabricated and randomly divided into 3 groups (n=21). Both sides of each disc were abraded with a medium-grit diamond bur. One side was autoglazed and was considered a control. The other side was polished until the surface appeared shiny to the naked eye using 1 of 3 porcelain polishing kits (Axis Dental, Jelenko, and Brasseler systems). The surface of each disc was evaluated quantitatively with surface profilometry and qualitatively using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A mean roughness profile (Ra) value was determined for each side of each specimen to describe the overall roughness of the surface. The Ra mean difference for each specimen was determined by subtracting the mean experimental readings (polished surface) from the mean control readings (glazed surface) and was used for the statistical analysis. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance followed by a Tukey multiple comparison test (alpha=.05). Representative specimens from each group were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS: The Axis porcelain polishing system produced a smoother surface than the Brasseler or Jelenko systems (0.586 +/- 0.256, 0.306 +/- 0.238, and 0.277 +/- 0.230, respectively). No significant difference was found between the Jelenko and Brasseler porcelain polishing kits (F=10.6, P <.001). The images obtained through SEM were evaluated and found to be consistent with the profilometer readings.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, all 3 porcelain polishing systems produced a surface smoother than the autoglazed surface of Finesse. The Axis system provided a significantly smoother surface compared to the Brasseler and Jelenko polishing systems.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15523338     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  16 in total

1.  An in vitro study to identify a ceramic polishing protocol effecting smoothness superior to glazed surface.

Authors:  Noxy George Manjuran; T Sreelal
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2013-08-22

2.  An in vitro investigation to compare the surface roughness of auto glazed, reglazed and chair side polished surfaces of Ivoclar and Vita feldspathic porcelain.

Authors:  Sumit Sethi; Dilip Kakade; Shantanu Jambhekar; Vinay Jain
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2012-12-14

3.  Evaluation of the surface roughness in dental ceramics submitted to different finishing and polishing methods.

Authors:  Alex C Vieira; Mario C S Oliveira; Emilena M C X Lima; Isabel Rambob; Mariana Leite
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2013-03-08

4.  [Marginal features of CAD/CAM laminate veneers with different materials and thicknesses].

Authors:  Y Li; L Wong; X Q Liu; T Zhou; J Z Lyu; J G Tan
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-02-18

5.  Evaluation of Different Polishing Systems and Speeds for Dental Zirconia.

Authors:  Ramakiran Chavali; Chee Paul Lin; Nathaniel C Lawson
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 6.  Advancements in all-ceramics for dental restorations and their effect on the wear of opposing dentition.

Authors:  Haroon Rashid; Zeeshan Sheikh; Syed Misbahuddin; Murtaza Raza Kazmi; Sameer Qureshi; Muhammad Zuhaib Uddin
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

7.  Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains.

Authors:  Işil Sarikaya; Ahmet Umut Güler
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

8.  Porcelain surface alterations and refinishing after use of two orthodontic bonding methods.

Authors:  Drew T Herion; Jack L Ferracane; David A Covell
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  An In vitro Evaluation to Compare the Surface Roughness of Glazed, Reglazed and Chair Side Polished Surfaces of Dental Porcelain.

Authors:  Varsha Rani; Sanjeev Mittal; Urvashi Sukhija
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2021-06-14

10.  Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing.

Authors:  Rim Hmaidouch; Wolf-Dieter Müller; Hans-Christoph Lauer; Paul Weigl
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.