Comparative Evaluation of the Translucency of Monolithic Zirconia

Abstract

Aims and objectives: New techniques are being developed to invent zirconia with high translucency and better esthetics leading to the development of several brands of monolithic zirconia. The aim of this study is to compare the translucency of three brands of zirconia available for the fabrication of monolithic restorations. Materials and methods: An in vitro study was designed to compare the translucency of three brands of zirconia available for the fabrication of monolithic restorations: Zirlux Zirconia (Vivadent Ivoclar), Zenostar Zr Translucent Zirconia (Weiland), and BruxZir Zirconia (Glidewell). All specimens were prepared to 0.5 mm thickness. Thirty zirconia specimens from each material were finished and polished. After drying, specimens were fired according to the manufacturers' recommendations. A spectrophotometer (Color i5) was used for the translucency test. Each specimen was presented at the view port permitting the light to hit the center of the specimen. Results were saved into the software until all measurements were completed. The data were then transferred to an Excel sheet where translucency parameters were calculated. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and the post hoc Bonferroni test were performed to analyze the results. Results: The one-way ANOVA test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups. This study showed lower translucency of BruxZir in comparison to Zenostar and Zirlux when tested under standardized conditions. Conclusion: There is a statistically significant difference in the translucency between the different brands of zirconia available for monolithic restoration fabrication. Clinical significance: Different brands of zirconia have different degrees of translucency. Material selection should be customized in each case.

Effect of surface finishing and polishing procedures on color properties and translucency of monolithic zirconia restorations at varying thickness

“…Previous studies, 28,39 evaluated the translucency of different monolithic zirconia brands. They reported that the translucency of monolithic zirconia is highly affected by the zirconia brand.…”

“…The specimens were aged in coffee solution between 5 and 55°C for 5,000 cycles with a dwell time of 30 and 10 s transfer time 39,40 . The coffee solution (Nescafe Classic; Nestle, SA) was produced following the manufacture ’ s recommendation by brewing a spoon of coffee in 177 ml hot water and was refreshed every 12 h. The specimens were brushed circumferentially under running water, for 10 times with toothpaste (Sensodyne; GalaxoSmithKline) and dried to lessen surface stains.…”

Digital image analysis of fluorescence of ceramic veneers with different ceramic materials and resin cements

“…Liebermann et al proved that lithium disilicate ceramics show higher transmittance than all zirconia materials 27) . The crystalline pattern and molecular composition of IPS e.max CAD and IPS Empress CAD makes them more translucent than Zenostar [28][29][30] . In another study, the translucency of Zirconia is related to the changes in composition and sintering parameters 31) .…”

Use of Ultra-Translucent Monolithic Zirconia as Esthetic Dental Restorative Material: A Narrative Review

“…According to several manufacturers, the thickness of their translucent monolithic Zr dental restorative material can be as thin as 0.3 mm, falling between 0.3 and 0.7 mm. More retentive preparation designs and data about the thickness of translucent monolithic Zr are nevertheless needed and should be included in the literature [47,48]. A careful and accurate reduction of tooth tissue is necessary to get effective results with aesthetic veneers.…”