Grinding and polishing efficiency of a novel self-glazed zirconia versus the conventional dry-pressed and sintered zirconia ceramics

Abstract

The grinding and polishing efficiency of self-glazed zirconia and Zenostar zirconia, prepared by wet and dry approaches, respectively, were evaluated. Each sample was divided into two subgroups (n = 5). One was ground, and the other was polished by following the clinical adjustment protocol. Statistics were analysed by independent t-test to a significance level of p < .05. More material was ground off in self-glazed zirconia than in Zenostar zirconia (p < .05) during the same period, especially during the coarse grinding procedure (p < .05), whereas the grinding efficiency in fine grinding stage was not significantly different (p > .05). The polishing efficiency of the whole and of the fine polishing procedure of the two kinds of zirconia was significantly different (p < .05). It thus can be concluded that grinding and polishing efficiency of a novel self-glazed zirconia is significantly higher than that of the conventional Zenostar zirconia. ARTICLE HISTORY

Effects of Grinding and Polishing on Surface Characteristics of Monolithic Zirconia Fabricated by Different Manufacturing Processes: Wet Deposition and Dry Milling

“…The null hypothesis of this study was rejected, since a significant difference in surface roughness of the 2 types of monolithic zirconia with different surface treatments was found. Consistent with the findings of previous studies, 20,21 the as-sintered SZ in this study exhibited a more even and smoother surface than the as-sintered CZ, with completely different surface morphologies. It is the result of different manufacturing processes, although the raw materials of the 2 types of monolithic zirconia are the same (3Y-TZP).…”

“…Consistent with the findings of previous studies, 20,21 the as‐sintered SZ in this study exhibited a more even and smoother surface than the as‐sintered CZ, with completely different surface morphologies. It is the result of different manufacturing processes, although the raw materials of the 2 types of monolithic zirconia are the same (3Y‐TZP).…”

“…Under the same grinding condition, more ditches would be generated on the surface of ground SZ than CZ, which resulted in an R a value of ground SZ that was even higher than that of ground CZ. Meanwhile, it was also the reason for the higher griding efficiency of SZ than that of CZ 21 …”

Wear Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia against Natural Teeth in Comparison to Two Glass Ceramics with two Surface Finishing Protocols: An In-Vitro Study

“…Therefore, there is a need for highly qualified dental restorative materials to repair or replace teeth [11]. With the continuous development in dental industry, wear resistance of newer esthetic restorative materials has generally improved, and the damage to the opposing dentition has been reduced, such materials include new low fusing ceramics, resin nano-ceramics, polymer infiltrated glass ceramics (hybrid ceramics) and novel monolithic self-glazed zirconia [11][12][13][14]. However, the different structures and physical properties of teeth and restorative materials will eventually lead to varying degrees of differential wear [15].…”

Highly Accurate Digital Processing of Large Stroke Guideway with an Optical Material-Corning Code 7972

“…Traditional optical surface is manufactured by coarse grinding, fine grinding and polishing [ 26 ]. The accuracy of coarse grinding is generally in the tens of micrometers.…”