Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of topography for CAD/CAM all ceramic zirconia after different surface treatments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2019.06Keywords:
Cad/Cam, Zirconia, surface treatments, roughness, stereomicroscopeAbstract
Background and objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of grinding, reglazing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of monolithic zirconia qualitatively and quantitatively.
Materials and methods: Thirty-six disc-shaped yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide specimens were milled from pre-sintered zirconia blanks using CAD-CAM machine with a diameter of 12mm and thickness of 1.4mm for twenty-seven discs while 12mm and 1.2mm for nine discs as a control group. After that, they were sintered and overglazed. The control group (GA) left untouched while the other twenty-seven specimens were subjected to standardized wet grinded with a coarse diamond rotary instrument. Then they were randomly divided into three groups (nine specimens for each): grinded group (GB) without any additional surface treatment; reglazed group (GC) by adding galze material; polished group (GD) polishing with an intraoral zirconia polishing kit Kenda in a 2-step procedure. Then specimens were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. The surface roughness values were measured with a profilometer for all groups. The mean of surface roughness values was calculated and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and using LSD significant difference tests for comparison between groups (a = 0.05).
Results: Stereomicroscopic images revealed that the grinded specimen showed grooves and scratches, reglazed surface showed the same criteria as control with a little bit more evidence of irregularities. While polished specimen appeared smoother and more homogeneity. Statistically significant differences were noted among the experimental groups, in which GB resulted in the highest roughness, GD with the lowest roughness. While GC was close to GA.
Conclusions: Roughness significantly increased after grinding, but polishing decreased roughness significantly while glazing restores the smoothness.
References
Aboushelib MN, De Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21:984–91.
Mitov G, Heintze SD, Walz S, Woll K, Muecklich F, Pospiech P. Wear behavior of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different finishing procedures. Dent Mater 2012; 28:909-18.
Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater 2014; 30:1195-203.
Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16:935-43.
Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater 2008; 24:1556–7.
Passos SP, Torrealba Y, Major P, Linke B, Flores-Mir C, Nychka JA. In vitro wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2014; 23:593-601.
Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, Lim HP. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117:430-7.
Denry I. How and when does fabrication damage adversely affect the clinical performance of ceramic restorations? Dental Materials 2013; 29(1):85-96.
Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013; 57:236–61.
Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:245-52.
Cho LR, Yi YJ, Heo SJ. Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29(9):816-22.
Yuzugullu B, Celik C, Erkut S, Ozcelik TB. The effects of extraoral porcelain polishing sequences on surface roughness and color of feldspathic porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22(5): 472-5
Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 2006; 22(8):712-34.
Fahmy NZ, El Guindy J, Zamzam M. Effect of artificial saliva storage on micro hardness and fracture toughness of a hydrothermal glass-ceramic. J Prosthodont 2009; 18(4): 324-31.
Flury S, Lussi A, Zimmerli B. Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2010; 35(4): 470-81.
McLean IW. The nature of dental ceramics and their clinical use: Science and art of dental ceramics. Volume 1. Chicago, Quintessence 1979; 61-114.
Ahmad R, Wu BM, Morgano SM. Polishing mechanism and its effect on the mechanical properties of ceramic restorations - A review of the literature. Annal Dent Univ Malaya 2001; 8: 57-61.
Karayazgan B, Atay A, Saracli MA, Gunay Y. Evaluation of Candida albicans formation on feldspathic porcelain subjected to four surface treatment methods. Dent Mater J 2010; 29:147-53.
Steiner R, Beier US, Heiss-Kisielewsky I, Engelmeier R, Dumfahrt H, Dhima M. Adjusting dental ceramics: an in vitro evaluation of the ability of various ceramic polishing kits to mimic glazed dental ceramic surface. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113(6):616-22.
Oliveira-Junior OB, Buso L, Fujiy FH, Lombardo GH, Campos F, Sarmento HR, Souza RO. Influence of polishing procedures on the surface roughness of dental ceramics made by different techniques. Gen Dent 2013; 61(1):4-8.
Valian A, Moravej-Salehi E. Surface treatment of feldspathic porcelain: scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2014; 6:387-94.
Moravej-Salehi E, Moravej-Salehi E, Valian A. Surface topography and bond strengths of feldspathic porcelain prepared using various sandblasting pressures. J Investig Clin Dent 2016; 7:347-54.
Al-Makramani BM, Razak AA, Abu-Hassan MI. Biaxial flexural strength of TurkomCera core compared to two other all-ceramic systems. Journal of applied oral science 2010; 18(6): 607–12.
Khayat W, Chebib N, Finkelman M, Khayat S, Ali A. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2018; 119(4):626–631.
Auškalnis A, Žekonis G, Sūdžiūtė G, Povilaitytė G, Milčius D. Lithium disilicate ceramic roughness evaluation after different finishing methods and comparison before and after surface reduction and intraoral polishing imitation. European International Journal of Science and Technology 2017; 6(3):63–76.
Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Schmutz F, Trottmann A, Roos M, Ha¨mmerle CH. Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 2013; 71:102–12.
Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1141-50.
Hmaidouch R, Muller WD, Lauer HC, Weigl P. Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci 2014; 6:241-6.
Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB, Jamshidian M. Effect of coarse grinding, overglazing, and 2 polishing systems on the flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2017;118(5):658–65.
Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT, Bottino MC. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness e?ect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 666-73.
Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2013; 109:22–9.
Özkurt-Kayahan Z. Monolithic zirconia: A review of the literature’, An International Journal of Medical Sciences 2016; 27(4):1427-36.
Jung SY, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. A study on the in vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont 2010; 2:111–15.
Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, McLaren EA, Burgess JO. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent 2014; 42(12):1586-91.
Preis V, Grumser K, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, Rosentritt M. The effectiveness of polishing kits: influence on surface roughness of zirconia. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28(2):149–51.
Dupriez ND, Von-Koeckritz AK, Kunzelmann KH. A comparative study of sliding wear of nonmetallic dental restorative materials with emphasis on micromechanical wear mechanisms. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2015; 103(4):925-34.
Chavali R, Lin CP, Lawson NC. Evaluation of Different Polishing Systems and Speeds for Dental Zirconia. Journal of Prosthodontics 2015; 26(5):410–18.
Alhabdan AA, El-Hejazi AA. Comparison of surface roughness of ceramics after polishing with different intraoral polishing systems using profilometer and SEM. J Dent Health Oral Disord 2015; 2:1-11.
Kukiattrakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2011; 8(1):6-15.
Kenneth JA, Shen C, Rawls R. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. St. Louis, Missouri, USA 2013; 461.
Rashid H. Comparing glazed and polished ceramic surfaces using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Journal of Advanced Microscopy Research 2012; 7: 208–13
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Sazan M. Azeez, Shatha A. Salih (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in Erbil Dental Journal is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
