Areti D Vrochari1, Aikaterini Petropoulou2, Vasilios Chronopoulos1, Olga Polydorou3, Ward Massey1, Elmar Hellwig3. 1. School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Centre for Medicine and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. 3. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University School and Hospital, Albert Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the mean surface roughness (Ra) of one ceramic and one resin composite material used for indirect restorations, after grinding and repolishing by intraoral means. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials used were the lithium disilicate glass ceramic IPS e.max Press (EMP) and the indirect resin composite restoration system Gradia (GR). Twelve specimen disks were prepared from each material according to the manufacturer of each material. Five initial measurements of the Ra (Ra1 ) were made on each specimen as a referral basis, and the specimens were ground with a fine (red) diamond bur. The specimens were repolished using (a) Komet Dialite Polishing Kit for EMP and (b) Enhance Finishing and Polishing System and Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste for GR. Five final Ra (Ra2 ) measurements were performed on each specimen. All measurements were made using a laser profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was also used to visualize the initial surface morphology and the morphological changes on the specimens' surface after repolishing. RESULTS: A highly significant difference was found between Ra1EMP and Ra2EMP (p < 0.001), between Ra1GR and Ra2GR (p < 0.001), as well as between Ra2EMP and Ra2GR (p < 0.001), when compared in pairs. A highly significant difference (p < 0.001) was also found between ΔRaEMP and ΔRaGR , with ΔRaGR being higher than ΔRaEMP . The RaGR values were higher than the RaEMP values at all times. SEM revealed that both EMP and GR repolished surfaces presented with irregularities; however, in GR specimens major voids and craters were present. CONCLUSIONS: EMP was found to perform better when polished by intraoral means compared with GR. Both materials exhibited Ra2 above the critical threshold for increased plaque accumulation and periodontal inflammation. If enamel-to-enamel roughness found in occlusal contact areas is considered as baseline, both materials were clinically acceptable after repolishing.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the mean surface roughness (Ra) of one ceramic and one resin composite material used for indirect restorations, after grinding and repolishing by intraoral means. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials used were the lithium disilicate glass ceramic IPS e.max Press (EMP) and the indirect resin composite restoration system Gradia (GR). Twelve specimen disks were prepared from each material according to the manufacturer of each material. Five initial measurements of the Ra (Ra1 ) were made on each specimen as a referral basis, and the specimens were ground with a fine (red) diamond bur. The specimens were repolished using (a) Komet Dialite Polishing Kit for EMP and (b) Enhance Finishing and Polishing System and Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste for GR. Five final Ra (Ra2 ) measurements were performed on each specimen. All measurements were made using a laser profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was also used to visualize the initial surface morphology and the morphological changes on the specimens' surface after repolishing. RESULTS: A highly significant difference was found between Ra1EMP and Ra2EMP (p < 0.001), between Ra1GR and Ra2GR (p < 0.001), as well as between Ra2EMP and Ra2GR (p < 0.001), when compared in pairs. A highly significant difference (p < 0.001) was also found between ΔRaEMP and ΔRaGR , with ΔRaGR being higher than ΔRaEMP . The RaGR values were higher than the RaEMP values at all times. SEM revealed that both EMP and GR repolished surfaces presented with irregularities; however, in GR specimens major voids and craters were present. CONCLUSIONS: EMP was found to perform better when polished by intraoral means compared with GR. Both materials exhibited Ra2 above the critical threshold for increased plaque accumulation and periodontal inflammation. If enamel-to-enamel roughness found in occlusal contact areas is considered as baseline, both materials were clinically acceptable after repolishing.
Authors: Martin Rosentritt; Sebastian Hahnel; Frank Engelhardt; Michael Behr; Verena Preis Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Larissa Natiele Miotto; Mariana de Oliveira Carlos Villas-Bôas; Edgar Dutra Zanotto; Eduardo Bellini Ferreira; Laiza Maria Grassi Fais; Lígia Antunes Pereira Pinelli Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 3.896