Effect of toothbrushing on shade and surface roughness of extrinsically stained pressable ceramics

Effect of Aging on Stained Monolithic Resin‐Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Surface Roughness

“…In contrast, surface roughness in the stained feldspathic ceramic material was constant over the simulated time. The results of the present study are in accordance with a recently published study demonstrating that for surface roughness in stained leucite‐based ceramic no statistically significant difference was found after 12 years of toothbrushing . In contrast, a clinical study showed that glaze layers were worn after 6 months, which may require polishing of the surfaces after glazing …”

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

“…Regrettably, data on roughening of veneering ceramics are only seldom provided in the literature and were, therefore, not included as outcome in the above-mentioned review (Rabel et al, 2018). Several reasons can be assumed for increased roughness of veneering ceramics including a crystalline phase over time in the oral cavity like tooth brushing (Garza, Thompson, Cho, & Berzins, 2016), environmental conditions (Vechiato-Filho et al, 2015), abrasion due to mastication (Lawson, Bansal, & Burgess, 2016), or attrition due to antagonistic wear (Amer, Kürklü, & Johnston, 2015). All mentioned conditions can result in dissolution of the amorphous phase while crystalline parts of the lattice remain at the restorations surface acting as potential abrasives.…”

CAD/CAM‐fabricated ceramic implant‐supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: Final results of a 5‐year prospective cohort study

“…This roughly corresponds to 21% (5/24) in the present investigation after a comparable observation period. Several reasons can be assumed for increased roughness of lithium disilicate ceramics over time in the oral cavity: Tooth brushing, environmental conditions (oral fluids mixed with beverages or oral hygiene products), abrasion (mastication), attrition (antagonistic wear), or grinding damage . Concerning the last‐mentioned aspect, it could be shown that intraoral polishing steps after grinding (e.g., adjustments of the occlusion) might not be capable to recreate the same smooth surface finish as received from the dental laboratory after a final glaze firing .…”