Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (3): 565-571. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.03.025

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Surface roughness, gloss and sequential polishing times of various chairside computer aided design/manufacturing restorative materials

Hao LUO1,Fu-cong TIAN2,Xiao-yan WANG1,*()   

  1. 1. Department of Cariology and Endodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & NHC Research Center of Engi-neering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China
    2. Department of Endodontics, Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta GA30912, USA
  • Received:2020-02-08 Online:2022-06-18 Published:2022-06-14
  • Contact: Xiao-yan WANG E-mail:wangxiaoyan@pkuss.bjmu.edu.cn

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the effect of polishing on surface roughness, gloss and optimum polishing time of various computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restorative materials and to provide a proper polishing procedure for dental clinicians. Methods: Five CAD/CAM restorative materials including vita mark Ⅱ (VM), vita enamic (VE), lava ultimate (LU), shofu block HC (SB) and brilliant crios (BC) were selected. Six specimens were prepared for each material. The specimen was fixed on a custom-made polishing apparatus and sequentially polished with Sof-Lex poli-shing disk system including medium disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 10-40 μm), fine disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 3-9 μm) and superfine disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 1-7 μm). Surface roughness (Ra value) and gloss value were measured every 10 seconds until the numerical values were no longer changed. Then the surface roughness, gloss value and polishing time were recorded and the specimen was moved to the next sequence of polishing. Finally, statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 24.0. Results: For all the restorative materials, the Ra values were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) and the gloss values were significantly increased (P < 0.05) after sequentially polishing with Sof-Lex disks. No significant difference was detected among Ra values of all the tested materials (P>0.05) after sequential polishing. The gloss values of LU [(68.1±4.5) GU] and BC [(68.2±5.8) GU] were significantly higher than those of VE [(48.1±8.1) GU] and BC [(53.2±5.8) GU], P < 0.05. To obtain optimal surface smoothness, VM cost the shortest polishing time [40 (30, 55) s] among all the restorative materials (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the total polishing time were observed among VE [140 (135, 145) s], LU [130 (120, 140) s], SB [140 (130, 150) s] and BC [130 (120, 140) s], P>0.05. Conclusion: The surface roughness of all CAD/CAM restorative materials were decreased after sequentially polishing with Sof-Lex disk system. To obtain the smoothest surface, different types of restorative materials might need different polishing times using Sof-Lex polishing disk system. For ceramic restorative material VM, we recommend polishing only with medium disk for 40 s. For hybrid restorative material VE and composite restorative material LU, SB and BC, we recommend polishing with medium disk, fine disk and superfine disk in sequence for 130-140 s in total.

Key words: Computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing, Restorative materials, Surface roughness, Gloss

CLC Number: 

  • R783.1

Table 1

CAD/CAM materials used in this study"

Materials Type Main composition
Vita mark Ⅱ Feldspathic glass ceramic SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, K2O, CaO and TiO2
Vita enamic Hybrid material Polymer matrix (UDMA, TEGDMA) infiltrated into feldspathic ceramic network
Lava ultimate Nanofill composite Bis-GMA, UDMA, Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, non-agglomerated SiO2(20 nm) and ZrO2 (4-11 nm), and SiO2/ZrO2 nano-agglomerates
Shofu block HC Microhybrid composite Polyurethane resin matrix and zirconium silicate micro ceramic filler
Brilliant crios Microhybrid composite Bis-EMA, UDMA, DMA, silica (20 nm), barium glass (300 nm)

Figure 1

Set-up of custom-made polishing apparatus"

Table 2

Surface roughness of the CAD/CAM materials after each polishing step(/μm, ${\bar x}$±s)"

Materials Before polishing M disk F disk SF disk
VM 0.672±0.015 0.100±0.021 0.132±0.047 0.139±0.051
VE 0.639±0.024 0.151±0.010 0.119±0.006 0.109±0.010
LU 0.670±0.043 0.295±0.032 0.188±0.019 0.143±0.014
SB 0.643±0.024 0.134±0.017 0.112±0.002 0.104±0.009
BC 0.665±0.044 0.155±0.020 0.137±0.012 0.119±0.011

Table 3

Gloss value of the CAD/CAM materials after each polishing step(/GU, ${\bar x}$±s)"

Materials Before polishing M disk F disk SF disk
VM 8.9±0.3 67.6±9.0 61.8±16.7 60.3±15.9
VE 4.9±0.3 25.3±5.8 41.5±7.3 48.1±8.1
LU 4.8±0.2 10.4±1.4 35.6±5.9 68.2±5.8
SB 4.2±0.2 48.7±5.2 60.1±3.9 68.1±4.5
BC 5.6±0.4 34.8±6.0 43.4±3.9 53.2±5.8

Table 4

Polishing time of the CAD/CAM materials after each polishing step [/s, M(Mmin, Mmax)]"

Materials M disk F disk SF disk Total
VM 40 (30, 55) 20 (20, 30) 20 (20, 20) 80 (70, 100)
VE 50 (50, 60) 50 (50, 60) 30 (25, 35) 140 (135, 145)
LU 40 (35, 40) 50 (40, 55) 40 (40, 40) 130 (120, 140)
SB 60 (55, 75) 40 (40, 50) 30 (20, 40) 140 (130, 150)
BC 50 (50, 60) 40 (40, 55) 30 (25, 30) 130 (120, 140)

Figure 2

Scanning electron microscope (×2 000) of the various materials before polishing, and after polishing Letters A to E represent different computer aided design/manufacturing materials as follow: A, vita mark Ⅱ; B, vita enamic; C, lava ultimate; D, shofu block HC; E, brilliant crios. Numbers 1 to 4 represent each polishing step as follow: 1, before polishing; 2, after polishing with M disk; 3, after polishing with F disk; 4, after polishing with SF disk. Sof-Lex polishing disk systems included medium disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 10-40 μm), fine disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 3-9 μm) and superfine disk (with abrasive particle sizes of 1-7 μm)."

1 Blatz MB , Conejo J . The current state of chairside digital dentistry and materials[J]. Dent Clin North AM, 2019, 63 (2): 175- 197.
doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.002
2 刘诗铭, 刘峰. 椅旁修复材料分类和新进展[J]. 口腔医学, 2017, 37 (8): 673- 677.
3 Pfefferle R , Luemkemann N , Wiedenmann F , et al. Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical, and mechanical properties[J]. Clin Oral Invest, 2020, 24 (1): 395- 403.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02953-6
4 Kilinc H , Turgut S . Optical behaviors of esthetic CAD/CAM restorations after different surface finishing and polishing procedures and UV aging: an in vitro study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 120 (1): 107- 113.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.019
5 Yuan CY , Wang XY , Gao XJ , et al. Effects of surface properties of polymer-based restorative materials on early adhesion of strep-tococcus mutans in vitro[J]. J Dent, 2016, 54, 33- 40.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.010
6 王桃, 郭震威, 郭慧晶, 等. 不同抛光工具对陶瓷抛光效果的比较研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2017, 35 (2): 171- 175.
7 Flury S , Lussi A , Zimmerli B . Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations[J]. Oper Dent, 2010, 35 (4): 470- 481.
doi: 10.2341/09-373-L
8 Kaizer MR , de Oliveira-Ogliari A , Cenci MS , et al. Do nanofill or submicron compo-sites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies[J]. Dent Mater, 2014, 30 (4): e41- e78.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.001
9 Jung M , Otte A , Klimek J . Is surface roughness of resin compo-sites affected by operator′ s performance?[J]. Am J Dent, 2008, 21 (1): 3- 6.
10 Jones CS , Billington RW , Pearson GJ . Laboratory study of the loads, speeds and times to finish and polish direct restorative materials[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2005, 32 (9): 686- 692.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01487.x
11 Amaya-Pajares SP , Ritter AV , Resendiz CV , et al. Effect of finishing and polishing on the surface roughness of four ceramic materials after occlusal adjustment[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2016, 28 (6): 382- 396.
doi: 10.1111/jerd.12222
12 Jones CS , Billington RW , Pearson GJ . Interoperator variability during polishing[J]. Quintessence Int, 2006, 37 (3): 183- 190.
13 Heintze SD , Reinhardt M , Muller F , et al. Press-on force during polishing of resin composite restorations[J]. Dent Mater, 2019, 35 (6): 937- 944.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.03.009
14 Vichi A , Fonzar RF , Goracci C , et al. Effect of finishing and po-lishing on roughness and gloss of lithium disilicate and lithium silicate zirconia reinforced glass ceramic for CAD/CAM systems[J]. Oper Dent, 2018, 43 (1): 90- 100.
doi: 10.2341/16-381-L
15 Wilder AD Jr. , Swift EJ Jr. , May KN Jr. , et al. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials[J]. J Dent, 2000, 28 (5): 367- 373.
doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00075-5
16 Flury S , Diebold E , Peutzfeldt A , et al. Effect of artificial toothbrushing and water storage on the surface roughness and micromechanical properties of tooth-colored CAD-CAM materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 117 (6): 767- 774.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.034
17 Heintze SD , Forjanic M , Rousson V . Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro[J]. Dent Mater, 2006, 22 (2): 146- 165.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.013
18 Markovic L , Jordan RA , Lakota N , et al. Micromorphology of Enamel Surface After Vital Tooth Bleaching[J]. J Endodont, 2007, 33 (5): 607- 610.
doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.01.011
19 Bollen CML , 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[J]. Dent Mater, 1997, 13 (4): 258- 269.
doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
20 Mörmmann WH , Stawarczyk B , Ender A , et al. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed, 2013, 20, 113- 125.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
21 Song XF , Yin L . Induced damage zone in micro-fine dental fini-shing of a feldspathic porcelain[J]. Med Eng Phys, 2010, 32 (5): 417- 422.
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.04.007
22 徐通, 高平, 魏茜茜, 等. 复合树脂的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学, 2017, 37 (11): 1053- 1056.
23 佟舒妍, 吴音, 司文捷. 新型口腔树脂陶瓷复合材料光泽度与粗糙度的研究[J]. 稀有金属材料与工程, 2015, 44, 718- 722.
24 Alexander-Katz R , Barrera RG . Surface correlation effects on gloss[J]. J Polym Sci Pol Phys, 1998, 36 (8): 1321- 1334.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0488(199806)36:8<1321::AID-POLB7>3.0.CO;2-U
25 da Costa JB , Ferracane J , Paravina RD , et al. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2007, 19 (4): 214- 224.
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x
26 Salgado VE , Cavalcante LM , Moraes RR , et al. Degradation of optical and surface properties of resin-based composites with distinct nanoparticle sizes but equivalent surface area[J]. J Dent, 2017, 59, 48- 53.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.008
[1] Ling WEI,Dong ZOU,Hu CHEN,Shao-xia PAN,Yu-chun SUN,Yong-sheng ZHOU. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of a kind of digital complete denture [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(4): 762-770.
[2] Jing-ying HU,Li LI,Qian-mei ZHOU,Rui-yu DING,Ran SHANG,Wei BAI. Influence of different mixing pads on physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(5): 964-967.
[3] ZHANG Hao-yu, JIANG Ting, CHENG Ming-xuan, ZHANG Yu-wei. Wear intensity and surface roughness of microhybrid composite and ceramic occlusal veneers on premolars after the thermocycling and cyclic mechanical loading tests [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(1): 73-77.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd