The influence of roughness on the resistance to impact of different CAD/CAM dental ceramics

Guilardi, Luís Felipe; Werner, A.; Jager, Niek de; Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha; Kleverlaan, Cornelis J.; Rippe, Marília Pivetta; Valandro, Luiz Felipe

doi:10.1590/0103-6440202103951

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The roughness data from this study showed that smoothness was significantly greater for polished than for glazed ceramics in all three cases (before and after immersion in solutions), although in another study, polishing was found to produce rough surfaces while glazing produced a smoother surface 10 . The difference may be attributed to different specimen preparation techniques, polishing techniques 11 , materials 12 or Ra machine used 13 . The surface roughness of polished specimens did not differ after immersion in coffee or water.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of chemical or mechanical finishing/polishing and immersion in staining solutions on the roughness, microhardness, and color stability of CAD-CAM monolithic ceramics

GA Brito,

LB Amaral,

P Turssi

et al. 2023

Acta Odontol Latinoam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the manufacture of ceramic restorations there is an important step of finishing and polishing and the effects of different types of these procedures on the surface characteristics of ceramics are not known for sure. Aim: To evaluate the effects of various surface treatments and immersion in coloring substances on the roughness, microhardness, and color stability of CAD-CAM monolithic ceramics. Materials and Method: The ceramics used were lithium disilicate reinforced with zirconium dioxide (Suprinity), lithium disilicate (E.max) or leucite (Empress). They were subjected to two surface treatments: glazing (group G) (n=20) or mechanical polishing (group P) (n=20). Then they were divided into two subgroups (n=10) to be treated with the staining substance (coffee or water). Roughness, microhardness and color were measured before and after treatment. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and multiple comparisons were performed with Tukey tests at 5% significance level. Results: Roughness was lower in all tested ceramics after polishing than after glazing. Microhardness was the same for polished and glazed E.max, higher in glazed than polished Empress, and higher in polished than glazed Suprinity. Analysis of the effects of glazing and polishing on the individual ceramics showed that the ∆E2000 and ∆WID data of the E.max ceramic subjected to polishing showed greater change. Mechanical polishing is a good option for surface treatment of monolithic ceramics. Conclusion: Glazing was inferior and less satisfactory than polishing. Glazing generates changes that can lead to color instability. Keywords: ceramics - dental polishing - materials testing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…smoother surface 10 . The difference may be attributed to different specimen preparation techniques, polishing techniques 11 , materials 12 or Ra machine used 13 . The surface roughness of polished specimens did not differ after immersion in coffee or water.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%