Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit

Patterson, C J; McLundie, A C; Stirrups, D. R.; Taylor, W.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(91)90229-p

Cited by 53 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8][9] Other authors demonstrated that feldspar ceramics prepared with a diamond bur (60 µm of granulation), and subsequent polishing with a diamond bur (1 µm to 4 µm of granulation) and diamond paste, reached surface roughnesses similar to a glazed ceramic. 10 In alumina reinforced feldspar ceramic, finishing with a diamond bur and polishing with rubber tips and felt disks impregnated with a fine-aluminum oxide particle-based paste resulted in a surface roughness similar to that obtained with glaze.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,5 Several finishing and polishing methods have been suggested to restore the surface characteristics of glazed ceramic. [6][7][8][9][10][11] However, there is no available information about these methods when applied to newer microfilled feldspar ceramics. Also, there is no scientific evidence to advise clinicians regarding finishing-polishing procedures to minimize the biofilm formation on glass-ceramics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Confocal Laser Microscopic Analysis of Biofilm on Newer Feldspar Ceramic

Brentel

Kantorski²,

Valandro³

et al. 2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study evaluated the surface roughness, hydrophobicity and in situ dental biofilm associated with microfilled feldspar ceramics submitted to the different finishing and polishing procedures. Methods and Materials: Samples were made according to the manufacturer's instructions and allocated to groups as follows: glaze (G1); glaze and diamond bur (G2); glaze, diamond bur and rubber tips (G3) and glaze, diamond bur, rubber tips and felt disks impregnated with a fine-aluminum oxide particle based paste (G4). Roughness was evaluated with a roughness analyzer (R a ). Hydrophobicity was determined by the contact angle of deionized water on samples. Biofilm was evaluated eight hours after formation in the oral environment using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanningelectron microscopy (SEM). Results: Significant differences were found related to roughness (G1

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confocal Laser Microscopic Analysis of Biofilm on Newer Feldspar Ceramic

Brentel

Kantorski²,

Valandro³

et al. 2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported that the final ceramic surfaces obtained with polishing are comparable to those of glazed surfaces. 13,20,[24][25][26][27][28] However, some authors have reported that polishing systems cannot recreate a surface that is as smooth as the original glaze. [29][30][31][32][33] Because the roughness value depends on the measurement technique, the investigation protocol used to study surface roughness is important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Porcelain Refinishing with Two Different Polishing Systems after Orthodontic Debonding

Karan

Toroğlu

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To compare the effects of two polishing systems on the surface roughness of three types of porcelain after orthodontic debonding. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 porcelain discs were fabricated from feldspathic (n ϭ 30), leucite-based (n ϭ 30) or lithia disilicate-based (n ϭ 30) ceramics. Ten samples in each group served as the control and received no surface treatment. The remaining 60 samples in three of the porcelain groups were bonded with lower incisor brackets and debonded using a testing machine in shear mode at a rate of 1 mm/minute crosshead speed. After debonding, the remaining adhesive resin was removed with a tungsten carbide bur. Then, two experimental subgroups (10 each) in each porcelain group were treated as follows: in the first subgroup, porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste were applied, whereas in the second, polishing was performed using a series of Sof-Lex discs. The average surface roughness (Ra) of the all samples was evaluated using SPM/AFM (surface probe microscope/atomic force microscope). Data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance for each porcelain material and polishing method. Results: The polishing techniques affected surface roughness significantly. There were significant differences between the groups; higher Ra values were obtained with the use of porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste (P Ͻ .001). Conclusion:The application of Sof-Lex discs can produce smoother porcelain surfaces than porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste.

show abstract

“…The relative merits of the various treatment procedures and the type of subsequent glazing on the final roughness of the surface are still subject to discussion [15,26,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Moreover, wettability of the final dental surface and its relation to the surface roughness has not been considered in detail.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of various treatment and glazing (coating) techniques on the roughness and wettability of ceramic dental restorative surfaces

Aksoy¹,

Polat

et al. 2006

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface treatment procedures such as grinding and polishing are needed to provide the ceramic dental restorative materials with proper fitting and occlusion. The treated surfaces are customarily glazed to improve the strength and smoothness. Though smoothness and wetting of the dental surfaces are important to minimize bacterial plaque retention, influence of the surface treatment and glazing procedures on the final surface roughness and its correlation to wettability are overlooked.In this work, effect of various treatment (diamond fraising, stoning, sanding and aluminum oxide and rubber polishing) and glazing (auto and overglazing) techniques on the final roughness and the resulting wettability of dental ceramic surfaces were investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations and atomic force microscopy (AFM) scans, 75 scans per sample. The surfaces were characterized and assigned an average roughness measure, R a . The wettability of the same surfaces was evaluated using micro-contact angle measurements (25 micro-bubbles placed on a grid on each surface) to correlate the final surface roughness and wettability.The results show that overglazing prevails over surface irregularities from different treatment procedures and provides homegeneously smooth surfaces with mean R a < 10 nm. It also produces uniformly wetted surfaces with low contact angles around 20 • . The autoglazed surfaces are less smooth (mean R a around 50 nm) and displays sporadic topographic irregularities. They display larger and less uniform contact angles ranging between 35 • and 50 • . The results suggest that overglazing should be preferred after surface treatment to obtain a smooth and well-wetted dental ceramic surface.

show abstract

Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit

Cited by 53 publications

References 6 publications

Confocal Laser Microscopic Analysis of Biofilm on Newer Feldspar Ceramic

Confocal Laser Microscopic Analysis of Biofilm on Newer Feldspar Ceramic

Porcelain Refinishing with Two Different Polishing Systems after Orthodontic Debonding

Effect of various treatment and glazing (coating) techniques on the roughness and wettability of ceramic dental restorative surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About