International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Topography of Monolith Zirconia

Rohit Singh, Irfanul Huda, Aaysha T Nabi, Supriya Singh, Ashesh Gautam, Swatantra Kumar

Keywords : Monolithic, Polishing, Profilometer, Roughness, Zirconia

Citation Information : Singh R, Huda I, Nabi AT, Singh S, Gautam A, Kumar S. Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Topography of Monolith Zirconia. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020; 10 (4):142-145.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1290

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of various polishing agents over surface roughness and topography of monolithic zirconia. Materials and methods: Total 300 high-translucency LAVA PLUS Zirconia specimens (8 mm × 6 mm × 3 mm thickness) were prepared by sectioning blocks in the green stage. Sectioned blocks were sintered at 1450°C. Baseline surface roughness values of unpolished, ground blocks were measured using a profilometer. Samples were categorized into five groups, with each group having 60 samples—group I: White stone at 200,000 rpm with 40 strokes for 60 seconds and water coolant followed by polishing with diamond-impregnated silicone kit at 10,000 rpm with 40 strokes for 60 seconds (two steps); group II: Polishing done using diamond-impregnated silicone (two steps) at 10,000 rpm at 60 strokes for 90 seconds; group III: Polishing done using silicone paper containing silica carbide at 10,000 rpm at 40 strokes for 1 minute; group IV: Polishing done using silicone paper containing diamond at 10,000 rpm using 60 strokes in 90 seconds (two steps); group V: Polishing performed with silicone paper with diamond (two steps) at 8,000 rpm at 60 strokes for 90 seconds. Mean surface roughness (Ra) values were calculated. Collected data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and post hoc test using the SPSS software. One specimen per group was subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Results: Mean surface roughness values for all groups were found as 0.8, 0.7, 0.054, 0.002, and 0.01, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in polishing agents containing diamond (p = 0.7). Significant difference (p = 0.0) was observed between control groups compared to other groups. On SEM examination, surfaces polished with kits manufactured for Zirconia demonstrated greater smoothness compared to other porcelain polishers. Conclusion: Polishing systems containing diamond particles were found to enhance the surface smoothness and reduce roughness of monolithic zirconia as compared to silica carbide. Polishing systems should be adhered to as per manufacturer due to abrasive particle size appropriateness.


PDF Share
  1. Porojan L, Vasiliu RD, Birdeanu MI, et al. Surface characterization and optical properties of reinforced dental glass-ceramics related to artificial ageing. Molecules 2020;25(15):3407. DOI: 10.3390.
  2. Gech J, Antunes E. Zirconia in dental prosthetics: a literature review. J Mater Res Technol 2019;8(5):4956–4964. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.06.043.
  3. Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P, et al. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):134–148. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x.
  4. Tanaka H, Maeda T, Narikiyo H, et al. Mechanical properties of partially stabilized zirconia for dental applications. J Asian Ceram Soc 2019;7(4):460–468. DOI: 10.1080/21870764.2019.1665767.
  5. Bartolo D, Cassar G, Husain NAH, et al. Effect of polishing procedures and hydrothermal aging on wear characteristics and phase transformation of zirconium dioxide. J Prosthet Dent 2016;12:41–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.004.
  6. Pantic M, Mitrovic S, Babic M, et al. AFM surface roughness and topography analysis of lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Tribol Ind 2015;37(4):391–399.
  7. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mat 2008;24(3):299–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.007.
  8. Thompson V, Rekow D. Dental ceramics and the molar crown testing ground. J Appl Sci 2004;12(spe):26–31. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572004000500004.
  9. Manawi M, Ozcan M, Madina M, et al. Impact of surface finishes on the flexural strength and fracture toughness of in-Ceram zirconia. Gen Dent 2012;8:138–142.
  10. Ozkurt-Kayahan Z. Monolithic zirconia: a review of literature. Biomed Res 2016;27(4):1427–1436.
  11. Gao CL, Yap AUJ, Tan KBC, et al. Effect of polishing systems on surface roughness and topography of monolithic zirconia. Open Dent 2016;41(4):417–423. DOI: 10.2341/15-064-L.
  12. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent 2012;6(02):198–205. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698951.
  13. Bandeira MB, Queiroz IMS, Fernandes SKSC, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of monolithic zirconia after using different polishing kits. Pesquisa Brasilieira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada 2017;17(1):e2984–e2991. DOI: 10.4034/PBOCI.2017.171.17.
  14. Azeez SM, Salih SA. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of topography for CAD/CAM all ceramic zirconia after different surface treatments. Eur Dent J 2019;2(1):164–173. DOI: 10.15218/edj.2019.06.
  15. Asli HN, Rahimabadi S, Falahchai M. Flexural strength of monolithic zirconia after different surface treatment. World J Dent 2019(4). DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-1005-1653.
  16. İşeri U, Özkurt Z, Yalnız A, et al. Comparison of different grinding procedures on the flexural strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107(5):309–315. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60081-X.
  17. Gaonkar SH, Aras MA, Chitre V. An in vitro study to compare the surface roughness of glazed and chairside polished dental monolithic zirconia using the two polishing systems. J Ind Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(2):186–192. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_339_19.
  18. Lee DH, Mai HN, Thant PP, et al. Effects of different surface finishing protocols for zirconia on surface roughness and bacterial biofilm formation. J Adv Prosthodon 2019;11(1):41–47. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.1.41.
  19. Khayat W, Chabib N, Finkelman M, et al. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(4):626–631. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.003.
  20. Caglar I, Ates SM, Duymus ZY. The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(2):132–137. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.132.
  21. Mohammadibassir M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, et al. Effect of two polishing systems on surface roughness, topography and flexural strength of a monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):e172–e180. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12586.
  22. Alhabadan AA, El-Hejazi AA. Comparison of surface roughness of ceramics after polishing with different intra-oral polishing systems using profilometer and SEM. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2015;2(3):00050. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.