Influence of external and internal surface roughness modifications on ceramic flexural strength

Ruschel, V.C.; Maia, H.P.; Lopes, Guilherme Carpena

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.003

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that the DK group presented the lower surface roughness. These results are in accordance with previous studies (1,16,17) which found similar roughness values between glass ceramics submitted to glaze or sequential polishing with silicon carbide abrasive instruments (2,14,18). The DK group specimens have been submitted to sequential finishing/polishing with abrasive silicon carbide points with coarse, medium and fine grit, associated to goat hairbrush and cotton wheel, what may explain the findings of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The intensity of the surface roughness changes generated by the finishing-polishing procedures was probably too small to produce any deleterious effects on the biaxial flexural strength, since the polishing procedures tested were not detrimental to the mechanical properties of the pressable ceramic. Probably the surface irregularities and defects observed in the glaze layer were reduced after finishing and polishing, what consequently caused a numerical increase in the biaxial flexural strength of the ceramic specimens, despite non-significant differences were verified for the groups (17). This result can be explained because the flexural strength of dental ceramics depends more on the intrinsic factors such as microstructural stresses and bulk defects than on surface roughness (24).…”

Section: Polishing Protocols For Pressable Ceramicmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Polishing Protocols For Pressable Ceramicmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 Transgranular and intergranular cracks and flaws will form in LDGC materials after adjustment with a diamond rotary cutting instrument. 12 The effect of simulated adjustments on LDGC have been evaluated; however, the testing protocols used did not replicate clinical failure features.6, 13, 14, 15 Ruschel et al 15 evaluated polishing procedures on adjusted LDGC specimens and found that polishing did not improve flexural strength. Adjustment depths were not reported, and a 3-point bend test was used in which strength was largely dependent upon specimen edge finish.16, 17 Hung et al 6 studied simulated clinical grinding of LDGC and subsequent heat treatment on microcrack healing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of flexural strength and contact pressure after simulated chairside adjustment of pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic

Ramadhan

Thompson

Maroulakos

et al. 2018

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Clinicians should keep in mind these negative effects that could lead the restorations to premature failure, particularly when conservative tooth reduction and beveled margins are a necessity in a cavity preparation (3,9). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ceramics are brittle materials and susceptible to chipping. Although improvements in mechanical properties have been made during the past few years, some concerns still remain, such as fracture susceptibility to thermal and mechanical loading, and marginal misfit (1-3). Since the introduction of the first dental ceramic materials in the 19th century (4), different manufacturing techniques have been used in their fabrication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical properties and DIC analyses of CAD/CAM materials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study compared two well-known computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/CAM) blocks (Paradigm MZ100 [3M ESPE] and Vitablocs Mark II [Vita] in terms of fracture toughness (Kic), index of brittleness (BI) and stress/strain distributions.Material and MethodsThree-point bending test was used to calculate the fracture toughness, and the relationship between the Kic and the Vickers hardness was used to calculate the index of brittleness. Additionally, digital image correlation (DIC) was used to analyze the stress/strain distribution on both materials.ResultsThe values for fracture toughness obtained under three-point bending were 1.87Pa√m (±0.69) for Paradigm MZ100 and 1.18Pa√m (±0.17) for Vitablocs Mark II. For the index of brittleness, the values for Paradigm and Vitablocs were 73.13μm-1/2 (±30.72) and 550.22μm-1/2 (±82.46). One-way ANOVA was performed to find differences (α=0.05) and detected deviation between the stress/strain distributions on both materials.ConclusionsBoth CAD/CAM materials tested presented similar fracture toughness, but, different strain/stress distributions. Both materials may perform similarly when used in CAD/CAM restorations. Key words:Ceramic, CAD/CAM, hybrid materials, composite resin, fracture toughness.

show abstract

Influence of external and internal surface roughness modifications on ceramic flexural strength

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

Analysis of flexural strength and contact pressure after simulated chairside adjustment of pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic

Mechanical properties and DIC analyses of CAD/CAM materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About