Esra Incesu1, Nuran Yanikoglu2. 1. Graduate Prosthodontist, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey. Electronic address: esraaincesu@gmail.com. 2. Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Atatürk, Erzurum, Turkey.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the finishing and polishing of ceramic restorations may affect their surface properties is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of dental ceramics by using a profilometer, an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM), and an atomic force microscope (AFM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty square specimens (2×14×14 mm) of 3 popular ceramic systems (monolithic zirconia and feldspathic-based ceramic containing feldspar and fluorapatite) were prepared, glazed, and assigned to 1 of the 5 groups: a control group with no additional treatment after the glaze; in the other groups, the glaze layer was removed, and the surfaces were polished by using 4 different ceramic polishing systems (OptraFine, Shofu, Meisinger, or Komet). The surface roughness was evaluated numerically by using a profilometer and visually by using an ESEM and an AFM. The data were interpreted by using 2-way ANOVA. A multiple comparison of averages was conducted by using the Tukey HSD (α=.05). RESULTS: The smoothest surface was obtained in the glazed group polished with the OptraFine kit, with no statistically significant difference (P=.95). The other groups showed a significant difference from the glazed one (P<.05); however, the difference among the other groups was not significantly different (P=.59). CONCLUSIONS: After the adjustment of dental ceramics and upon removal of the glaze, the OptraFine polishing kit and paste application can be used as an alternative to glazing for the 3 ceramic types tested. It was not possible to adequately polish the ceramic surface by using the Komet polishing kit.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the finishing and polishing of ceramic restorations may affect their surface properties is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of dental ceramics by using a profilometer, an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM), and an atomic force microscope (AFM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty square specimens (2×14×14 mm) of 3 popular ceramic systems (monolithic zirconia and feldspathic-based ceramic containing feldspar and fluorapatite) were prepared, glazed, and assigned to 1 of the 5 groups: a control group with no additional treatment after the glaze; in the other groups, the glaze layer was removed, and the surfaces were polished by using 4 different ceramic polishing systems (OptraFine, Shofu, Meisinger, or Komet). The surface roughness was evaluated numerically by using a profilometer and visually by using an ESEM and an AFM. The data were interpreted by using 2-way ANOVA. A multiple comparison of averages was conducted by using the Tukey HSD (α=.05). RESULTS: The smoothest surface was obtained in the glazed group polished with the OptraFine kit, with no statistically significant difference (P=.95). The other groups showed a significant difference from the glazed one (P<.05); however, the difference among the other groups was not significantly different (P=.59). CONCLUSIONS: After the adjustment of dental ceramics and upon removal of the glaze, the OptraFine polishing kit and paste application can be used as an alternative to glazing for the 3 ceramic types tested. It was not possible to adequately polish the ceramic surface by using the Komet polishing kit.
Authors: Manassés Tercio Vieira Grangeiro; Camila da Silva Rodrigues; Natália Rivoli Rossi; Jadson Mathyas Domingos da Silva; Nathalia de Carvalho Ramos; João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Lilian Costa Anami; Marco Antonio Bottino Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.748