Silvia P Amaya-Pajares1, Andre V Ritter2, Carolina Vera Resendiz3, Brett R Henson4, Lee Culp5, Terence E Donovan6. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Professor and Chair, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Graduate Student, Department of Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Sculpture Studios, Morrisville, NC, USA. 6. Professor and Section Head of Biomaterials, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PROBLEM: Intraoral occlusal adjustment of ceramic restorations can create a significant increase in surface roughness that can produce wear of the opposing dentition. PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of glazed and polished monolithic ceramics with the surface roughness produced by different intraoral polishing systems on adjusted monolithic ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Milled ceramic discs (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness) were manufactured and distributed according to the following groups (n = 10): BruxZir (glazed and polished), Zenostar (glazed and polished), IPS Empress CAD, and IPS e.max CAD. Surface roughness, expressed as arithmetic average height (Ra ), was measured using atomic force microscope and profilometer before and after adjustment and polishing with the following intraoral polishing systems: BruxZir and Dialite ZR (for BruxZir), Zenostar and Dialite ZR (for Zenostar), and OptraFine and Dialite LD for IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD. Mean and standard error for each material and polishing system were calculated. T-test, one-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: BruxZir zirconia presented smoother surfaces with Dialite ZR system compared to BruxZir system, Zenostar zirconia shown smoother surfaces with Zenostar system compared to Dialite ZR system and IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD presented smoother surfaces with OptraFine system in comparison to Dialite LD system. CONCLUSION: All materials presented smoother surfaces at baseline than after adjustment and polishing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This paper reveals the results of an in vitro study that provides information to clinicians regarding which intraoral polishing system will produce a smoother surface after the adjustment and polishing of IPS Empress CAD, IPS e.max CAD, BruxZir and Zenostar ceramic materials. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:382-396, 2016).
PROBLEM: Intraoral occlusal adjustment of ceramic restorations can create a significant increase in surface roughness that can produce wear of the opposing dentition. PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of glazed and polished monolithic ceramics with the surface roughness produced by different intraoral polishing systems on adjusted monolithic ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Milled ceramic discs (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness) were manufactured and distributed according to the following groups (n = 10): BruxZir (glazed and polished), Zenostar (glazed and polished), IPS Empress CAD, and IPS e.max CAD. Surface roughness, expressed as arithmetic average height (Ra ), was measured using atomic force microscope and profilometer before and after adjustment and polishing with the following intraoral polishing systems: BruxZir and Dialite ZR (for BruxZir), Zenostar and Dialite ZR (for Zenostar), and OptraFine and Dialite LD for IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD. Mean and standard error for each material and polishing system were calculated. T-test, one-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: BruxZir zirconia presented smoother surfaces with Dialite ZR system compared to BruxZir system, Zenostar zirconia shown smoother surfaces with Zenostar system compared to Dialite ZR system and IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD presented smoother surfaces with OptraFine system in comparison to Dialite LD system. CONCLUSION: All materials presented smoother surfaces at baseline than after adjustment and polishing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This paper reveals the results of an in vitro study that provides information to clinicians regarding which intraoral polishing system will produce a smoother surface after the adjustment and polishing of IPS Empress CAD, IPS e.max CAD, BruxZir and Zenostar ceramic materials. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:382-396, 2016).