Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems

Park, Chan; Vang, Mong-Sook; Park, Sang-Won; Lim, Hyun-Pil

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.005

Cited by 49 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results may have been due to neither sintering nor polishing treatment probably promotes monoclinic phase transformation as shown with groups N-SIN and N-POL. These findings also confirm other studies, which showed that polishing produced no t→m phase transformation [34,35,58]. It can be assumed that the previously transformed monoclinic layer (20 µm thicknesses) caused by aging on the surface of zirconia within group A-POL was removed during the polishing treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Influence of Aging on Biaxial Flexural Strength and Hardness of Translucent 3Y-TZP

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the influence of aging and surface treatment on surface roughness, biaxial flexural strength (BFS), and Vickers hardness (VHN) of translucent dental zirconia. Half of 80 disc-shaped zirconia specimens (1.2 mm thickness and 12 mm diameter) were aged (group A) in an autoclave for 20 h (134 °C and 0.2 MPa) and the other half were not aged (group N). Specimens were subjected to: no surface treatment (SIN), particle air-abrasion with 50 µm alumina particles at 1 bar (0.1 MPa) and 2.5 bar (0.25 MPa), or polishing down to 1 µm (POL). Specimens were analyzed using X-ray diffraction, laser scanning microscope, BFS, and VHN tests. Three groups (N-SIN, N-POL, and A-POL) showed almost no monoclinic phase. While other groups showed monoclinic phase ratios ranging from 7.5 vol. % ± 2.4 vol. % (N-0.1 MPa) to 41.5 vol. % ± 0.3 vol. % (A-0.1 MPa). Aging and particle air-abrasion increased significantly the BFS, ranging from 720 ± 37 MPa (N-SIN) to 1153 ± 92 MPa (N-0.1 MPa). The hardness was not influenced significantly by aging. A certain amount of monoclinic phase at the surface strengthens the high translucent dental zirconia, while hardness and roughness are not influenced. The pressure of particle air-abrasion showed no influence on the evaluated properties.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Influence of Aging on Biaxial Flexural Strength and Hardness of Translucent 3Y-TZP

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CG system showed the lowest surface roughness on Y-TZP, not differing from KO system. These results corroborate with another study 14 . Al-Haj Husain et al 5 reported that the effectiveness of CG system is related to minor loss of abrasive particles during the polishing on Y-TZP surface.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The objective was to evaluate, quantitative and qualitative, the abrasive effect of three polishing systems on the monolithic zirconia ceramic. Methods: Thirty disk-shaped samples of Yttria Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal (Y-TZP) were randomly distributed in three groups (n = 10) according to polishing system: G1- Komet system (KO); G2 - CeraGloss system (CG); G3 - Eve Diacera system (EV). The surface roughness (Ra) was obtained with Rugosimeter in four different moments: a) initial - glaze sample (Ra0); b) after occlusal adjustment with diamond burs (Ra1); c) after polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2); d) after polishing with felt disc and diamond paste (Ra3). Four additional samples were observed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: According to the Generalized Estimating Equation followed by the Bonferroni test (α = 0.05), the CG provided the lowest Ra2 (0.63 μm), not differing significantly from the KO (0.78 μm). The highest Ra2 was obtained with the EV (0.97 μm), which did not differ significantly from the KO. There was no statistical difference in Ra between the polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2) and the final polishing with diamond paste (Ra3). SEM images showed that the polishing systems did not completely remove the grooves caused by the diamond burs during the occlusal adjustment. Conclusion: It was concluded that CG promoted smoother surface of the monolithic zirconia ceramic compared to EV, and intermediate smoothness was obtained with KO.

show abstract

“…Chipping or fracture of the veneering layer is the most commonly reported clinical complication for ZVP. 5 6 MZ restorations which contain only zirconia are directly exposed to the oral environment that does not require veneered with esthetic material. Thus, the absence of veneering porcelain could eliminate the chipping problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 7 8 9 10 Although the precision of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology has been a significant progress, the intraoral adjustments of the restorations are still needed for adaption, occlusion and to ensure the emergence profile. 6 11 Because of high surface hardness of zirconia, diamond burs are used to carry out clinical adjustment which may cause loss of glaze layer and surface smoothness. 12 The rough and irregular surface of restorations can lead to increased catastrophic wear of opposing enamel and dental restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare three polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia.MATERIALS AND METHODS100 disk shaped specimens (10 mm diameter, 3 mm thickness) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia blocks. 20 specimens were left as a control group and remaining specimens were grinded by diamond bur to simulate the occlusal adjustments. Grinded specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups: group G (no polishing), group M (Meisinger, zirconia polishing kit), group E (EVE Diacera, zirconia polishing kit), and group P (EVE Diapol, porcelain polishing kit). Surface roughness was measured with profilometer and surface topography was observed with SEM. XRD analysis was performed to investigate the phase transformation. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests at a significance level of P=.05.RESULTSAll polishing groups showed a smoother surface than group G. Among 3 polishing systems, group M and group E exhibited a smoother surface than the group P. However, no significant differences were observed between group M and group E (P>.05). Grinding and polishing did not cause phase transformations in zirconia specimens.CONCLUSIONZirconia polishing systems created a smoother surface on zirconia than the porcelain polishing system. Phase transformation did not occur during the polishing procedure.

show abstract

Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems

Cited by 49 publications

References 32 publications

Influence of Aging on Biaxial Flexural Strength and Hardness of Translucent 3Y-TZP

Influence of Aging on Biaxial Flexural Strength and Hardness of Translucent 3Y-TZP

Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems

The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About