Effects of extraoral polishing procedures on surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 123 - 131, 18.05.2022

Sevinç Ertuğrul Seda Yıldırım Bulem Yüzügüllü

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1069349

Cited By: 1

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different extraoral polishing procedures on surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of 1.5x20x20 (0.3-0.5) mm were prepared by cutting super high translucent(n=40), high translucent(n=40) and high semi-translucent(n=40) semi-sintered monolithic zirconia blocks. After 4 specimens from each group were separated for topographical evaluation by scanning electron microscope, the remaining specimens were divided into control(K), glazed(G), polished(P), polishing + polishing paste(PP) groups. Surface roughness was measured with an optical profilometer. Two-way mixed ANOVA and Post-hoc multiple comparison tests with Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The effect of three different zirconia material groups and three different surface treatments on roughness was statistically significant(P<0.05). According to the within-group comparisons, while Group G has the highest roughness values(P<0.05) Group PP has the lowest(P<0.05). A statistically significant difference was found only between the glazed samples of Cube ONE and CubeX² groups(P=0.008). SEM photographs revealed that the surface topography varied in zirconia materials with different contents and between different extraoral treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia materials is reduced by polishing and polishing + polishing paste application. Instead of glazing, polishing systems for translucent monolithic zirconia may be recommended when extraoral polishing is required.

Keywords

optic profilometer, roughness, scanning electron microscope, translucent monolithic zirconia

Ekstraoral Parlatma İşlemlerinin Translüsent Monolitik Zirkonyanın Yüzey Pürüzlülüğüne Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı translüsenste monolitik zirkonya materyallerine uygulanan ekstraoral bitirme işlemlerinin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisinin incelenmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Süper yüksek translüsent (n=40), yüksek translüsent (n=40) ve yüksek yarı translüsent (n=40) yarı sinterize monolitik zirkonya bloklar kesilerek, 1,5x20x20 (0.3-0.5) mm boyutlarında örnekler hazırlanmıştır. Her gruptan 4’er örnek taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile topografik değerlendirme için ayrıldıktan sonra, kalan örnek grupları da kendi içinde kontrol (K), sırlanmış (G), polisaj (P), polisaj+polisaj patı (PP) olarak ayrılmış ve yüzey pürüzlülükleri optik profilometre ile ölçülmüştür. İstatistiksel analizde iki yönlü karma ANOVA, Bonferroni düzeltmeli Post-hoc çoklu karşılaştırma testleri uygulanmıştır.

Bulgular: Üç farklı zirkonya materyal grubu ve 3 farklı yüzey uygulamasının pürüzlülük üzerindeki etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur(P<0,05). Grup içi karşılaştırmalar değerlendirildiğinde, Grup G en yüksek pürüzlülük değerlerine sahipken(P<0,05), Grup PP ise en düşük değerlere sahiptir(P<0,05). Yalnızca Cube ONE ile CubeX² gruplarının sırlanmış örnekleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur(P=0,008). TEM fotoğraflarında farklı içerikte zirkonya materyallerde ve farklı ekstraoral işlem grupları arasında yüzey topografisi değişkenlik göstermiştir.

Sonuç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın sınırlamaları dahilinde, tüm translüsent monolitik zirkonya gruplarında, polisaj+polisaj patı uygulaması yapılan örnekler en düşük yüzey pürüzlülüğüne sahiptir. Ekstraoral bitirme işlemi gerektiren durumlarda, translüsent monolitik zirkonya restorasyon yüzeylerinin sırlama yerine polisajlama yöntemleri uygulanarak bitirilmesi önerilebilir.

Keywords

optik profilometre, pürüzlülük, tarayıcı elektron mikroskobu, translüsent monolitik zirkonya

References

• 1. Marchack BW, Sato S, Marchack CB et al. Complete and partial contour zirconia designs for crowns and fixed dental prostheses: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106:145–152.
• 2. BR. ZY and L. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. J Dent Res. 2018;97:140–147.
• 3. Pfefferle R, Lümkemann N, Wiedenmann F SB. Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical, and mechanical properties. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(1):395–403.1.
• 4. Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT BM. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater. 2013;29:666–673.
• 5. T. Odatsu, R. Jimbo, A. Wennerberg, I. Watanabe TS. Effect of polishing and finishing procedures on the surface integrity of restorative ceramics. Am J Dent. 2013;26(1):51–55.
• 6. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC BJ. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:22–29.
• 7. Sarikaya I GA. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18:10–16.
• 8. Wieland, Marco; Textor, Marcus; Spencer, Nicholas D.; Brunette DM. Wavelength-Dependent Roughness: A Quantitative Approach to Characterizing the Topography of Rough Titanium Surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(2):163–181.
• 9. M.M. Manziuc, C. Gasparik, A.V. Burde, H.A. Colosi, M. Negucioiu DD. Effect of glazing on translucency, color, and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(5):478–485.
• 10. Kim HK, Kim SH, Lee JB HS. Effects of surface treatments on the translucency, opalescence, and surface texture of dental monolithic zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):773–779.
• 11. K.Q. Al Hamad, A.M. Abu Al‐Addous, A.M. Al‐Wahadni, N.Z. Baba BJG. Surface roughness of monolithic and layered zirconia restorations at different stages of finishing and polishing: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(7):818–825.
• 12. Jum’ah, A. A., Brunton, P. A., KC, L., & Waddell JN. Simulated clinical adjustment and intra-oral polishing of two translucent, monolithic zirconia dental ceramics: An in vitro investigation of surface roughness. J Dent. 2020;101.
• 13. Oh WS, Shen C, Alegre B AK. Wetting characteristic of ceramic to water and adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(6):616–621.
• 14. Khayat W, Chebib N, Finkelman M, Khayat S AA. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):626–631.
• 15. Meral Kurt BTB. Farklı Yüzey İşlemleri ve Hızlandırılmış Yapay Yaşlandırmanın Monolitik Seramik Sistemlerin Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü ve Topografisi Üzerine Etkileri. Selcuk Dent J. 2017;4(2):68–76.
• 16. Rupawala A, Musani SI, Madanshetty P, Dugal R, Shah UD SE. A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(1):8–14.
• 17. Gundugollu Y, Yalavarthy RS, Krishna MH, Kalluri S, Pydi SK TS. Comparison of the effect of monolithic and layered zirconia on natural teeth wear: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(4):336–342.
• 18. Hmaidouch R, Müller WD, Lauer HC WP. Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci. 2014;6(4):241–246.
• 19. Mohammadibassir M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, Moravej Salehi E, Fahimi MA KFM. Effect of two polishing systems on surface roughness, topography, and flexural strength of a monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:172–180.
• 20. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S KT. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57(4):236–261.
• 21. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC BJ. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):22–29.
• 22. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG JS. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;40(11):979–988.
• 23. Preis V, Schmalzbauer M, Bougeard D, Schneider- Feyrer S RM. Surface properties of monolithic zirconia after dental adjustment treatments and in vitro wear simulation. J Dent. 2015;43(1):133–139.
• 24. Goo CL, Yap A, Tan K FA. Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Topography of Monolithic Zirconia. Oper Dent. 2016;41(4):417–423.
• 25. Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB JM. Effect of coarse grinding, overglazing, and 2 polishing systems on the flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(5):658–665.
• 26. Motro PF, Kursoglu P KE. Effects of different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(4):231–237.
• 27. Al-Wahadni A MD. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: A literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998;64:580–583.
• 28. Gaonkar SH, Aras MA C V. An in vitro study to compare the surface roughness of glazed and chairside polished dental monolithic zirconia using two polishing systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20(2):186–192.
• 29. Chun EP, Anami LC, Bonfante EA BM. Microstructural analysis and reliability of monolithic zirconia after simulated adjustment protocols. Dent Mater. 2017;33(8):934–943.
• 30. Hatanaka GR, Polli GS AG. The mechanical behavior of high-translucent monolithic zirconia after adjustment and finishing procedures and artificial aging. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(2):330–337.