Impact of polishing system on surface roughness of different ceramic surfaces after various pretreatments and bracket debonding

Abstract

Objective Evaluating various polishing methods after bracket debonding and excessive attachment material removal for different ceramics and pretreatments. Material and methods Zirconia (ZrO2), leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with a) silica coated alumina particles (CoJet); LEU and LiSi additionally with b) hydrofluoric acid (HF), c) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), d) silicium carbide grinder (SiC) before bracket bonding, shearing off, ARI evaluation, excessive attachment material removal and polishing with i) Sof-Lex Discs (Soflex), ii) polishing paste (Paste), iii) polishing set (Set). Before/after polishing surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Martens hardness parameter were also assessed. Results Irrespective of pretreatment Ra of LEU increased the most, followed by LiSi and ZrO2 (p < 0.001, SiC: p = 0.012), in accordance with the measured Martens hardness parameter. CoJet/SiC caused greater roughness as HF/MEP (p < 0.001). The ZrO2 surface was rougher after polishing with Paste/Set (p < 0.001; p = 0.047). Ra improved in the LEU/CoJet, LEU/SiC and LiSi/SiC groups with Soflex/Set (p < 0.001), in the LiSi/CoJet and LEU/HF groups by Soflex (p = 0.003, p < 0.001) and worsened by Paste (p = 0.017, p < 0.001). Polishing of HF or MEP pretreated LiSi with Set increased Ra (p = 0.001, p < 0.001), so did Paste in the LEU/MEP group (p < 0.001). Conclusions Paste couldn’t improve the surfaces. Soflex was the only method decreasing Ra on rough surfaces and not causing roughness worsening. Polishing of LEU/LiSi after MEP, LEU after HF pretreatment doesn´t seem to have any benefit. Clinical Relevance To avoid long-term damage to ceramic restorations, special attention should be paid to the polishing method after orthodontic treatment.

Effects of Nano-Diamond-Coated Milling Bits on Cutting Dental Zirconia

“…However, Jones et al [23] suggested that patients are able to distinguish between differences in roughness values of at least 0.5 µm; thus, 0.5 µm is considered to be clinically acceptable. The surface roughness of ceramics is influenced by various factors, including the proper-ties of ceramic materials, the production process, and the grinding and polishing of the restoration [24,25].…”

Evaluation of zirconia surfaces and shear bond strength after acid–etching with ultrasonic vibration

“…Numerous approaches have been proposed to improve surface roughness, such as the use of selective infiltration etching, airborne-particle abrasion (APA) with aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ) particles or tribochemical silica coating (Rocatec Soft, Rocatec Plus), and laser irradiation [5]. Surface roughening increases the surface area which facilitate the penetration of the resin to zirconia, making micromechanical interlocking improved.…”