J Adv Prosthodont.  2018 Apr;10(2):132-137. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.132.

The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey. ipeksatiroglu@hotmail.com

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare three polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
100 disk shaped specimens (10 mm diameter, 3 mm thickness) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia blocks. 20 specimens were left as a control group and remaining specimens were grinded by diamond bur to simulate the occlusal adjustments. Grinded specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups: group G (no polishing), group M (Meisinger, zirconia polishing kit), group E (EVE Diacera, zirconia polishing kit), and group P (EVE Diapol, porcelain polishing kit). Surface roughness was measured with profilometer and surface topography was observed with SEM. XRD analysis was performed to investigate the phase transformation. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests at a significance level of P=.05.
RESULTS
All polishing groups showed a smoother surface than group G. Among 3 polishing systems, group M and group E exhibited a smoother surface than the group P. However, no significant differences were observed between group M and group E (P>.05). Grinding and polishing did not cause phase transformations in zirconia specimens.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia polishing systems created a smoother surface on zirconia than the porcelain polishing system. Phase transformation did not occur during the polishing procedure.

Keyword

Grinding; Monolithic zirconia; Phase transformation; Polishing; Surface roughness

MeSH Terms

Dental Instruments
Dental Porcelain
Occlusal Adjustment
Dental Porcelain

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Scanning electron microscopy image (×1000 magnification) of the zirconia specimens as received, control group.

  • Fig. 2 Scanning electron microscopy image (×1000 magnification) of the grinded zirconia specimens, Group G.

  • Fig. 3 Scanning electron microscopy image (×1000 magnification) of the zirconia specimens after polishing with Meisinger system, Group M.

  • Fig. 4 Scanning electron microscopy image (×1000 magnification) of the zirconia specimens after polishing with EVE Diacera system, Group E.

  • Fig. 5 Scanning electron microscopy image (×1000 magnification) of the zirconia specimens after polishing with EVE Diapol system, Group P.

  • Fig. 6 XRD patterns of zirconia specimens.


Cited by  2 articles

Effects of different surface finishing protocols for zirconia on surface roughness and bacterial biofilm formation
Du-Hyeong Lee, Hang-Nga Mai, Phyu Pwint Thant, Su-Hyung Hong, Jaewon Kim, Seung-Mi Jeong, Keun-Woo Lee
J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(1):41-47.    doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.1.41.

Effects of different finishing/polishing protocols and systems for monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and biofilm formation
Hang-Nga Mai, Su-Hyung Hong, Sung-Hun Kim, Du-Hyeong Lee
J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(2):81-87.    doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.81.


Reference

1. Pereira GK, Silvestri T, Camargo R, Rippe MP, Amaral M, Kleverlaan CJ, Valandro LF. Mechanical behavior of a Y-TZP ceramic for monolithic restorations: effect of grinding and low-temperature aging. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016; 63:70–77.
Article
2. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999; 20:1–25.
Article
3. Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:1195–1203.
Article
4. Lazar DR, Bottino MC, Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Amaral R, Ussui V, Bressiani AH. Y-TZP ceramic processing from coprecipitated powders: a comparative study with three commercial dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:1676–1685.
Article
5. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16:935–943.
Article
6. Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, Lim HP. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117:430–437.
Article
7. Raigrodski AJ, Yu A, Chiche GJ, Hochstedler JL, Mancl LA, Mohamed SE. Clinical efficacy of veneered zirconium dioxide-based posterior partial fixed dental prostheses: five-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108:214–222.
Article
8. Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Suzuki Y, Tokiniwa Y, Fukushima S. Five-year clinical evaluation of In-Ceram crowns fabricated using GN-I (CAD/CAM) system. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:601–607.
Article
9. Ortorp A, Kihl ML, Carlsson GE. A 3-year retrospective and clinical follow-up study of zirconia single crowns performed in a private practice. J Dent. 2009; 37:731–736.
10. Etman MK, Woolford MJ. Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic crown systems: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103:80–90.
Article
11. Guilardi LF, Pereira GKR, Gündel A, Rippe MP, Valandro LF. Surface micro-morphology, phase transformation, and mechanical reliability of ground and aged monolithic zirconia ceramic. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017; 65:849–856.
Article
12. Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:245–252.
13. Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, Schneider-Feyrer S, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of dental ceramics after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012; 10:13–22.
Article
14. Preis V, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Hahnel S, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:796–804.
Article
15. Cotes C, Arata A, Melo RM, Bottino MA, Machado JP, Souza RO. Effects of aging procedures on the topographic surface, structural stability, and mechanical strength of a ZrO2-based dental ceramic. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:e396–e404.
Article
16. Amaral M, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Souza RO. Low-temperature degradation of a Y-TZP ceramic after surface treatments. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101:1387–1392.
Article
17. Ozcan M, Melo RM, Souza RO, Machado JP, Felipe Valandro L, Botttino MA. Effect of air-particle abrasion protocols on the biaxial flexural strength, surface characteristics and phase transformation of zirconia after cyclic loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013; 20:19–28.
18. Çağlar İ, Yanıkoğlu N. The effect of sandblasting, Er:YAG laser, and heat treatment on the mechanical properties of different zirconia cores. Photomed Laser Surg. 2016; 34:17–26.
Article
19. Glavina D, Skrinjaric I, Mahovic S, Majstorovic M. Surface quality of Cerec CAD/CAM ceramic veneers treated with four different polishing systems. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004; 5:30–34.
20. Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB, Jamshidian M. Effect of coarse grinding, overglazing, and 2 polishing systems on the flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:658–665.
Article
21. Karakoca S, Yilmaz H. Influence of surface treatments on surface roughness, phase transformation, and biaxial flexural strength of Y-TZP ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009; 91:930–937.
Article
22. Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 1999; 15:426–433.
23. Motro PF, Kursoglu P, Kazazoglu E. Effects of different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108:231–237.
Article
24. Wright MD, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Thompson GA, Runyan DA. Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92:486–490.
Article
25. Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Evaluation of various polishing systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:440–449.
Article
26. Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT, Bottino MC. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:666–673.
Article
27. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:433–449.
Article
28. Camacho GB, Vinha D, Panzeri H, Nonaka T, Gonçalves M. Surface roughness of a dental ceramic after polishing with different vehicles and diamond pastes. Braz Dent J. 2006; 17:191–194.
Article
29. Aravind P, Razak PA, Francis PG, Issac JK, Shanoj RP, Sasikumar TP. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of four ceramic finishing systems. J Int Oral Health. 2013; 5:59–64.
30. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997; 13:258–269.
31. Lee KR, Choe HC, Heo YR, Lee JJ, Son MK. Effect of different grinding burs on the physical properties of zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8:137–143.
Article
32. Al-Haj Husain N, Camilleri J, Özcan M. Effect of polishing instruments and polishing regimens on surface topography and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia: An evaluation with XPS and XRD analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016; 64:104–112.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JAP
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr