Effects of Different Polishing Protocols on Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Silva, Tânia Mara da; Salvia, Ana Carolina Rodrigues Danzi; Carvalho, Rodrigo Furtado de; Silva, Eduardo Galera da; Pagani, Clóvis

doi:10.1590/0103-6440201300370

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was confirmed by our study as all fractures started from the occlusal surface. LDS ceramic has been commonly used in wide range indications [29]. Despite the low opacity of the ceramic, it can be veneered to improve esthetic and sufficient veneer support [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses

Yeğin

Atala

2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. Methods The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS, monolithic), group L-V: LDS ceramic (veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS, monolithic), group ZL-V: ZLS ceramic (veneering). Crown restorations were subjected to load-to-failure test (0.5 mm/min). Failure loads of each group were statistically analyzed (two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to compare the stress distribution of crown restorations. Results Group L-M had the highest failure load (2891.88 ± 410.12 N) with a significant difference from other groups (p < 0.05). Although there was a significant difference between group ZL-M (1750.28 ± 314.96 N) and ZL-V (2202.55 ± 503.14 N), there was no significant difference from group L-V in both groups (2077.37 ± 356.59 N) (p > 0.05). Conclusions The veneer application had opposite effects on ceramics, increased the failure load of ZLS and reduced it for LDS without a statistically significant difference. Both materials are suitable for implant-supported crowns. Different restorative materials did not influence the stress distribution, but monolithic restorations reduced the stress concentration on the implant and bone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses

Yeğin

Atala

2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The studies of Bollen et al (1997) and Martinez-Gomiz et al (2003) reported that the final result after polishing cannot be compared with the result after re-glazing. Another study by da Silva et al (2015) reported that polishing could produce a surface comparable with that of a glazed ceramic surface. This study confirmed the results from the studies claiming that polishing after corrections on the ceramic surface cannot achieve the smoothness of glazed ceramics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Heintze et al (2005) and Jones et al (2004) wrote a smooth surface adds to the patient's comfort, as already a change of surface roughness in order of 0.3µm can be detected by the tip of the patient's tongue. Observations and research by Silva et al (2015) show that to avoid these unpleasant consequences polishing the ceramic structure to achieve a smoother surface is required. Different techniques for polishing different ceramic materials are described in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Roughness of Lithium Disilicate Press Ceramics After Different Types of Polishing

Vasil’eva

Vlahova

Hristov

et al. 2021

PMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: The smoothness of a ceramic’s surface is very important of its esthetic and prophylactic qualities. AIM: The purpose of this investigation is to study the possibilities of polishing lithium disilicate ceramics after making a correction on the glazed ceramic surface. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subject of the study were 20 test samples made of lithium disilicate press ceramics. They were divided into 4 groups according to the method of processing and polishing. Group 1 was treated with a red diamond bur and polishing set; Group 2 was treated with a green diamond bur and polishing set; Group 3 was treated with a red diamond bur, polishing set and diamond paste; Group 4 was treated with a diamond bur with green coding, polishing set and diamond paste. The samples were examined with an atomic force microscope to observe the change in surface relief. The reference point for comparison was the surface of the glazed ceramic. RESULTS: After polishing with diamond paste, the surface became smoother compared to the treatment of the surface with a polishing kit alone. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the polishing protocol used, there was a difference in the topography of the ceramic surface before and after treatment.

show abstract

“…Hence, all adjusted ceramic restorations should be submitted to a further polishing protocol since surface quality is essential for clinical success (11). Finishing and polishing procedures are important for reducing the roughness of adjusted ceramic surfaces (1,2), preventing discoloration of roughened areas in order to maintain the natural appearance (1,7), as the gloss of the ceramic surface is commonly restored (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Topography, Gloss and Flexural Strength of Pressable Ceramic After Finishing-Polishing Protocols

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of different finishing-polishing protocols on surface roughness, gloss, morphology and biaxial flexural strength of pressable fluorapatite glass ceramic. Thirty ceramic discs (12x1 mm) were produced and divided into five groups (n=6): CT: control (glaze); DA: fine grit diamond bur; DG: DA + new glaze layer; DP: DA + felt disk with fine grit diamond paste; DK: DA+ sequential polishing with silicon abrasive instruments, goat hair brush and cotton wheel. The specimens were analyzed for surface roughness (Ra) under profilometry and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Gloss was measured with spectrophotometry and micromorphology with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Flexural strength was assessed by biaxial flexural strength test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (a=0.05). DK showed the lowest surface roughness values and DA presented the highest in the perfilometer analysis. No significant differences were observed in the AFM for the CT, DG and DK groups, which presented the lower surface roughness; DA and DP had the higher Ra values. The DA, DP and CT showed the lowest surface gloss values, and the reflectance was significantly different from those observed for DK and DG groups. SEM analysis revealed the smoothest surface for DK group, followed by DG and CT groups; DA and DP groups exhibited variable degrees of surface irregularities. No significant differences were observed among groups for the biaxial flexural strength. The polishing protocol used in DK group can be a good alternative for chairside finishing of adjusted pressable fluorapatite glass ceramic surfaces.

show abstract

Effects of Different Polishing Protocols on Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses

Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses

Surface Roughness of Lithium Disilicate Press Ceramics After Different Types of Polishing

Surface Topography, Gloss and Flexural Strength of Pressable Ceramic After Finishing-Polishing Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About