IADR Abstract Archives
Effectiveness of Polishing Kits: Influence on Roughness of Zirconia
Methods: Zirconia specimens (Cercon HT, DeguDent, G; 6x6mm; thickness=1.5mm) were successively sintered, ground (diamond bur 837LF-014, Meisinger, G) and finished with different polishing systems under standardized conditions. 11 polishing kits including technical and intraoral 2-step or 3-step systems were investigated (5 specimens/group). Sintered zirconia specimens served as reference. Surface roughness Raafter sintering, grinding and each polishing step was determined (5 measurements/specimen; SP6, Perthen-Feinprüf, G) and analysed statistically (one-way ANOVA, α=0.05). SEM (Quanta FEG400, FEI, NL) pictures were made for qualitative surface evaluation.
Results:
|
Ra[µm] Mean±SD |
||
sintering (reference) |
0.24±0.04 |
||
grinding |
1.22±0.18 |
||
|
Step1 |
Step2 |
Step3 |
Intraoral polishing kits |
|
|
|
CeraGlaze (NTI, G) |
0.51±0.18 |
0.21±0.06 |
0.08±0.03 |
Zenostar (Wieland, G) |
0.85±0.14 |
0.37±0.06 |
0.25±0.06 |
OptraFine (Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL) |
0.22±0.09 |
0.17±0.08 |
0.18±0.05 |
Komet Ceramic kit (Brasseler, G) |
0.91±0.16 |
0.23±0.05 |
0.19±0.04 |
Komet Zirconia kit (Brasseler, G) |
0.34±0.11 |
0.26±0.07 |
no step3 |
Bruxzir set (Axis, USA) |
0.31±0.18 |
0.15±0.06 |
|
Diacera (EVE, G) |
0.34±0.11 |
0.23±0.05 |
|
CeraMaster/CeraMaster Coarse (Shofu, G) |
0.30±0.10 |
0.15±0.05 |
|
Technical polishing kits |
|
|
|
Zirconia polishers (Zirkonzahn, I) |
0.61±0.20 |
0.12±0.05 |
0.11±0.05 |
Zirconia polishers (Meisinger, G) |
0.11±0.05 |
0.06±0.02 |
no step3 |
Dia Blue O-Cera (Topdent, Kentzler-Kaschner, G) |
0.11±0.03 |
0.08±0.01 |
|
|
bold type: final polishing |
||
All polishing kits significantly reduced surface roughness of ground specimens after the first polishing step. Roughness was further reduced with the following polishing steps, however there were no significant differences between the first and second step for 2-step systems, and between the second and third step for 3-step systems. After the last polishing step, no significant differences were found between the intraoral kits. Technical kits partly revealed significantly lower surface roughness.
Conclusion: Both technical and intraoral 2-step or 3-step polishing kits are effective in reducing surface roughness. Regarding final roughness, there exist only small differences between the various systems.