Literature DB >> 20672733

Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations.

Simon Flury1, Adrian Lussi, Brigitte Zimmerli.   

Abstract

This in vitro study evaluated the performance of three ceramic and two commonly used polishing methods on two CAD/CAM ceramics. Surface roughness and quality were compared. A glazed group (GLGR) of each ceramic material served as reference. One-hundred and twenty specimens of VITABLOCS Mark II (VITA) and 120 specimens of IPS Empress CAD (IPS) were roughened in a standardized manner. Twenty VITA and 20 IPS specimens were glazed (VITA Akzent Glaze/Empress Universal Glaze). Five polishing methods were investigated (n=20/group): 1) EVE Diacera W11DC-Set (EVE), 2) JOTA 9812-Set (JOTA), 3) OptraFine-System (OFI), 4) Sof-Lex 2382 discs (SOF) and 5) Brownie/Greenie/Occlubrush (BGO). Polishing quality was measured with a surface roughness meter (Ra and Rz values). The significance level was set at alpha=0.05. Kruskal Wallis tests and pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment were used. Qualitative surface evaluation of representative specimens was done with SEM. On VITA ceramics, SOF produced lower Ra (p<0.00001) but higher Rz values than GLGR (p=0.003); EVE, JOTA, OFI and BGO yielded significantly higher Ra and Rz values than GLGR. On IPS ceramics, SOF and JOTA exhibited lower Ra values than GLGR (p<0.0001). Equivalent Ra but significantly higher Rz values occurred between GLGR and EVE, OFI or BGO. VITA and IPS exhibited the smoothest surfaces when polished with SOF. Nevertheless, ceramic polishing systems are still of interest to clinicians using CAD/CAM, as these methods are universally applicable and showed an increased durability compared to the investigated silicon polishers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20672733     DOI: 10.2341/09-373-L

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  7 in total

1.  [Polishing performance of different polishing tools for CEREC Blocs ceramic].

Authors:  Wang Tao; Guo Zhenwei; Guo Huijing; Qiao Xianghe
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2017-04-01

2.  Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials.

Authors:  Mike Matzinger; Sebastian Hahnel; Verena Preis; Martin Rosentritt
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Mono or polycrystalline alumina-modified hybrid ceramics.

Authors:  Marina R Kaizer; Ana Paula R Gonçalves; Priscilla B F Soares; Yu Zhang; Paulo F Cesar; Sergio S Cava; Rafael R Moraes
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2016-01-02       Impact factor: 5.304

4.  [Surface roughness, gloss and sequential polishing times of various chairside computer aided design/manufacturing restorative materials].

Authors:  H Luo; F C Tian; X Y Wang
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-06-18

Review 5.  The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: A review of literature.

Authors:  Haroon Rashid
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2014-10

6.  Surface Characteristics and Biofilm Development on Selected Dental Ceramic Materials.

Authors:  Kyoung H Kim; Carolina Loch; J Neil Waddell; Geoffrey Tompkins; Donald Schwass
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2017-05-08

7.  An in vitro evaluation of the effect of polishing on the stainability of different CAD/CAM ceramic materials.

Authors:  Ala'a Abu-Obaid; Amjad AlMawash; Noura Alyabis; Nouf Alzaaqi
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2019-08-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.