Sevinç ERTUĞRUL, Seda YILDIRIM, Bulem YÜZÜGÜLLÜ

Ekstraoral Parlatma İşlemlerinin Translüsent Monolitik Zirkonyanın Yüzey Pürüzlülüğüne Etkisi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı translüsenste monolitik zirkonya materyallerine uygulanan ekstraoral bitirme işlemlerinin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisinin incelenmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Süper yüksek translüsent (n=40), yüksek translüsent (n=40) ve yüksek yarı translüsent (n=40) yarı sinterize monolitik zirkonya bloklar kesilerek, 1,5x20x20 (0.3-0.5) mm boyutlarında örnekler hazırlanmıştır. Her gruptan 4’er örnek taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile topografik değerlendirme için ayrıldıktan sonra, kalan örnek grupları da kendi içinde kontrol (K), sırlanmış (G), polisaj (P), polisaj+polisaj patı (PP) olarak ayrılmış ve yüzey pürüzlülükleri optik profilometre ile ölçülmüştür. İstatistiksel analizde iki yönlü karma ANOVA, Bonferroni düzeltmeli Post-hoc çoklu karşılaştırma testleri uygulanmıştır.Bulgular: Üç farklı zirkonya materyal grubu ve 3 farklı yüzey uygulamasının pürüzlülük üzerindeki etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur(P<0,05). Grup içi karşılaştırmalar değerlendirildiğinde, Grup G en yüksek pürüzlülük değerlerine sahipken(P<0,05), Grup PP ise en düşük değerlere sahiptir(P<0,05). Yalnızca Cube ONE ile CubeX² gruplarının sırlanmış örnekleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur(P=0,008). TEM fotoğraflarında farklı içerikte zirkonya materyallerde ve farklı ekstraoral işlem grupları arasında yüzey topografisi değişkenlik göstermiştir. Sonuç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın sınırlamaları dahilinde, tüm translüsent monolitik zirkonya gruplarında, polisaj+polisaj patı uygulaması yapılan örnekler en düşük yüzey pürüzlülüğüne sahiptir. Ekstraoral bitirme işlemi gerektiren durumlarda, translüsent monolitik zirkonya restorasyon yüzeylerinin sırlama yerine polisajlama yöntemleri uygulanarak bitirilmesi önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

optik profilometre, pürüzlülük, tarayıcı elektron mikroskobu, translüsent monolitik zirkonya

Effects of extraoral polishing procedures on surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different extraoral polishing procedures on surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of 1.5x20x20 (0.3-0.5) mm were prepared by cutting super high translucent(n=40), high translucent(n=40) and high semi-translucent(n=40) semi-sintered monolithic zirconia blocks. After 4 specimens from each group were separated for topographical evaluation by scanning electron microscope, the remaining specimens were divided into control(K), glazed(G), polished(P), polishing + polishing paste(PP) groups. Surface roughness was measured with an optical profilometer. Two-way mixed ANOVA and Post-hoc multiple comparison tests with Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The effect of three different zirconia material groups and three different surface treatments on roughness was statistically significant(P<0.05). According to the within-group comparisons, while Group G has the highest roughness values(P<0.05) Group PP has the lowest(P<0.05). A statistically significant difference was found only between the glazed samples of Cube ONE and CubeX² groups(P=0.008). SEM photographs revealed that the surface topography varied in zirconia materials with different contents and between different extraoral treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, surface roughness of translucent monolithic zirconia materials is reduced by polishing and polishing + polishing paste application. Instead of glazing, polishing systems for translucent monolithic zirconia may be recommended when extraoral polishing is required.

Keywords:

optic profilometer, roughness, scanning electron microscope, translucent monolithic zirconia,

PDF

___

1. Marchack BW, Sato S, Marchack CB et al. Complete and partial contour zirconia designs for crowns and fixed dental prostheses: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106:145–152.
2. BR. ZY and L. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. J Dent Res. 2018;97:140–147.
3. Pfefferle R, Lümkemann N, Wiedenmann F SB. Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical, and mechanical properties. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(1):395–403.1.
4. Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT BM. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater. 2013;29:666–673.
5. T. Odatsu, R. Jimbo, A. Wennerberg, I. Watanabe TS. Effect of polishing and finishing procedures on the surface integrity of restorative ceramics. Am J Dent. 2013;26(1):51–55.
6. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC BJ. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:22–29.
7. Sarikaya I GA. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18:10–16.
8. Wieland, Marco; Textor, Marcus; Spencer, Nicholas D.; Brunette DM. Wavelength-Dependent Roughness: A Quantitative Approach to Characterizing the Topography of Rough Titanium Surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(2):163–181.
9. M.M. Manziuc, C. Gasparik, A.V. Burde, H.A. Colosi, M. Negucioiu DD. Effect of glazing on translucency, color, and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(5):478–485.
10. Kim HK, Kim SH, Lee JB HS. Effects of surface treatments on the translucency, opalescence, and surface texture of dental monolithic zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):773–779.
11. K.Q. Al Hamad, A.M. Abu Al‐Addous, A.M. Al‐Wahadni, N.Z. Baba BJG. Surface roughness of monolithic and layered zirconia restorations at different stages of finishing and polishing: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(7):818–825.
12. Jum’ah, A. A., Brunton, P. A., KC, L., & Waddell JN. Simulated clinical adjustment and intra-oral polishing of two translucent, monolithic zirconia dental ceramics: An in vitro investigation of surface roughness. J Dent. 2020;101.
13. Oh WS, Shen C, Alegre B AK. Wetting characteristic of ceramic to water and adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(6):616–621.
14. Khayat W, Chebib N, Finkelman M, Khayat S AA. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):626–631.
15. Meral Kurt BTB. Farklı Yüzey İşlemleri ve Hızlandırılmış Yapay Yaşlandırmanın Monolitik Seramik Sistemlerin Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü ve Topografisi Üzerine Etkileri. Selcuk Dent J. 2017;4(2):68–76.
16. Rupawala A, Musani SI, Madanshetty P, Dugal R, Shah UD SE. A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(1):8–14.
17. Gundugollu Y, Yalavarthy RS, Krishna MH, Kalluri S, Pydi SK TS. Comparison of the effect of monolithic and layered zirconia on natural teeth wear: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(4):336–342.
18. Hmaidouch R, Müller WD, Lauer HC WP. Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci. 2014;6(4):241–246.
19. Mohammadibassir M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, Moravej Salehi E, Fahimi MA KFM. Effect of two polishing systems on surface roughness, topography, and flexural strength of a monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:172–180.
20. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S KT. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57(4):236–261.
21. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC BJ. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):22–29.
22. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG JS. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;40(11):979–988.
23. Preis V, Schmalzbauer M, Bougeard D, Schneider- Feyrer S RM. Surface properties of monolithic zirconia after dental adjustment treatments and in vitro wear simulation. J Dent. 2015;43(1):133–139.
24. Goo CL, Yap A, Tan K FA. Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Topography of Monolithic Zirconia. Oper Dent. 2016;41(4):417–423.
25. Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB JM. 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(5):658–665.
26. Motro PF, Kursoglu P KE. Effects of different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(4):231–237.
27. Al-Wahadni A MD. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: A literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998;64:580–583.
28. Gaonkar SH, Aras MA C V. An in vitro study to compare the surface roughness of glazed and chairside polished dental monolithic zirconia using two polishing systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20(2):186–192.
29. Chun EP, Anami LC, Bonfante EA BM. Microstructural analysis and reliability of monolithic zirconia after simulated adjustment protocols. Dent Mater. 2017;33(8):934–943.
30. Hatanaka GR, Polli GS AG. The mechanical behavior of high-translucent monolithic zirconia after adjustment and finishing procedures and artificial aging. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(2):330–337.