Evaluation of the Surface Roughness in Dental Ceramics Submitted to Different Finishing and Polishing Methods

Abstract

Ceramic restorations have been widely used in dentistry. These restorations often require intraoral adjustment with diamond burs after their cementation causing increasing roughness of the ceramic surface. Consequently some finishing and polishing methods have been used to minimize this occurrence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the roughness of the ceramic surfaces submitted to different finishing and polishing methods. 144 specimens of VITAVM(®)7, VM(®)9 and VM(®)13 (VITA Zahnfabrik) ceramics were fabricated and submitted to grinding using diamond burs. They were then divided into 15 groups (five of each ceramic type). Groups 1, 6 and 11-positive control (Glaze); Groups 2, 7 and 12-negative control (no polishing); Groups 3, 8 and 13-polished with abrasive rubbers (Edenta), felt disc and diamond polishing past; Groups 4, 9 and 14-polished with abrasive rubbers (Shofu), felt disc and diamond polishing past; Groups 5, 10 and 15-polished with aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex, 3M-ESPE), felt disc and diamond polishing paste. The roughness of the samples surfaces were measured using the rugosimeter Surfcorder SE 1700 and the data were submitted to statistical analysis using ANOVA and Tukey test at a level of significance of 5 %. There was statistically significance difference between the positive control groups and the other groups in all the ceramic types. Mechanical finishing and polishing methods were not able to provide a surface as smooth as the glazed surface for the tested ceramics. To assist dental practitioners to select the best finishing and polishing methods for the final adjustment of the ceramic restorations.

Surface Roughness of Monolithic and Layered Zirconia Restorations at Different Stages of Finishing and Polishing: An In Vitro Study

“…The veneered zirconia groups (i.e., conventional, pressed, digital) followed a similar pattern in the reduction of the surface roughness; however, the level of surface roughness was still significantly higher than the glazed surface even after all finishing and polishing steps were completed. Similar to the present findings, a previous study compared the surface roughness of Vita VM7, VM9, and VM13 after finishing and polishing with a Shofu kit . The authors concluded that finishing and polishing procedures were not able to produce a surface as smooth as the glazed surface.…”

“…Similar findings were reported for monolithic and opaque zirconia . On the other hand, other studies reported that glazing is the best procedure for obtaining surface smoothness . Also, feldspathic porcelain was reported to have higher surface roughness than zirconia after finishing and polishing procedures …”

Wear Characteristics and Volume Loss of CAD/CAM Ceramic Materials

“…The glazed groups had a much lower surface roughness than the polished groups, consistent with previous reports . This is due to the glossy and smooth nature of a dental material that has been properly glazed .…”

The effect of milling and postmilling procedures on the surface roughness ofCAD/CAMmaterials

“…Some studies have shown that mechanical polishing can restore the ceramic smoothness to a level close to that of the glazed ceramics . However, other studies have shown that the best procedure is glazing . In fact, the quality of ceramic or composite resin polishing methods is a controversial topic in the literature.…”