TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness of Four Ceramic Materials after Occlusal Adjustment
AU - Amaya-Pajares, Silvia P.
AU - Ritter, Andre V.
AU - Vera Resendiz, Carolina
AU - Henson, Brett R.
AU - Culp, Lee
AU - Donovan, Terence E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2016/11/1
Y1 - 2016/11/1
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973299570&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973299570&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jerd.12222
DO - 10.1111/jerd.12222
M3 - Article
C2 - 27264939
AN - SCOPUS:84973299570
SN - 1496-4155
VL - 28
SP - 382
EP - 396
JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
IS - 6
ER -