Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems

Aim: The objective was to evaluate, quantitative and qualitative, the abrasive effect of three polishing systems on the monolithic zirconia ceramic. Methods: Thirty disk-shaped samples of Yttria Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal (Y-TZP) were randomly distributed in three groups (n = 10) according to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Deise Caren Somacal, Júlia Willers Dreyer, Patrícia Danesi, Ana Maria Spohr
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidade Estadual de Campinas 2019-11-01
Series:Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8657266
id doaj-6ff3407f408d4a09a9735b3d39f9874a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6ff3407f408d4a09a9735b3d39f9874a2021-07-14T18:46:01ZengUniversidade Estadual de CampinasBrazilian Journal of Oral Sciences1677-32252019-11-011810.20396/bjos.v18i0.8657266Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systemsDeise Caren Somacal0Júlia Willers Dreyer1Patrícia Danesi2Ana Maria Spohr3Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul Aim: The objective was to evaluate, quantitative and qualitative, the abrasive effect of three polishing systems on the monolithic zirconia ceramic. Methods: Thirty disk-shaped samples of Yttria Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal (Y-TZP) were randomly distributed in three groups (n = 10) according to polishing system: G1- Komet system (KO); G2 - CeraGloss system (CG); G3 - Eve Diacera system (EV). The surface roughness (Ra) was obtained with Rugosimeter in four different moments: a) initial - glaze sample (Ra0); b) after occlusal adjustment with diamond burs (Ra1); c) after polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2); d) after polishing with felt disc and diamond paste (Ra3). Four additional samples were observed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: According to the Generalized Estimating Equation followed by the Bonferroni test (α = 0.05), the CG provided the lowest Ra2 (0.63 μm), not differing significantly from the KO (0.78 μm). The highest Ra2 was obtained with the EV (0.97 μm), which did not differ significantly from the KO. There was no statistical difference in Ra between the polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2) and the final polishing with diamond paste (Ra3). SEM images showed that the polishing systems did not completely remove the grooves caused by the diamond burs during the occlusal adjustment. Conclusion: It was concluded that CG promoted smoother surface of the monolithic zirconia ceramic compared to EV, and intermediate smoothness was obtained with KO. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8657266Dental polishingSurface propertiesCeramics.
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Deise Caren Somacal
Júlia Willers Dreyer
Patrícia Danesi
Ana Maria Spohr
spellingShingle Deise Caren Somacal
Júlia Willers Dreyer
Patrícia Danesi
Ana Maria Spohr
Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Dental polishing
Surface properties
Ceramics.
author_facet Deise Caren Somacal
Júlia Willers Dreyer
Patrícia Danesi
Ana Maria Spohr
author_sort Deise Caren Somacal
title Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
title_short Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
title_full Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
title_fullStr Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
title_full_unstemmed Surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
title_sort surface roughness of monolithic zirconia ceramic submitted to different polishing systems
publisher Universidade Estadual de Campinas
series Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
issn 1677-3225
publishDate 2019-11-01
description Aim: The objective was to evaluate, quantitative and qualitative, the abrasive effect of three polishing systems on the monolithic zirconia ceramic. Methods: Thirty disk-shaped samples of Yttria Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal (Y-TZP) were randomly distributed in three groups (n = 10) according to polishing system: G1- Komet system (KO); G2 - CeraGloss system (CG); G3 - Eve Diacera system (EV). The surface roughness (Ra) was obtained with Rugosimeter in four different moments: a) initial - glaze sample (Ra0); b) after occlusal adjustment with diamond burs (Ra1); c) after polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2); d) after polishing with felt disc and diamond paste (Ra3). Four additional samples were observed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: According to the Generalized Estimating Equation followed by the Bonferroni test (α = 0.05), the CG provided the lowest Ra2 (0.63 μm), not differing significantly from the KO (0.78 μm). The highest Ra2 was obtained with the EV (0.97 μm), which did not differ significantly from the KO. There was no statistical difference in Ra between the polishing with the abrasive systems (Ra2) and the final polishing with diamond paste (Ra3). SEM images showed that the polishing systems did not completely remove the grooves caused by the diamond burs during the occlusal adjustment. Conclusion: It was concluded that CG promoted smoother surface of the monolithic zirconia ceramic compared to EV, and intermediate smoothness was obtained with KO.
topic Dental polishing
Surface properties
Ceramics.
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8657266
work_keys_str_mv AT deisecarensomacal surfaceroughnessofmonolithiczirconiaceramicsubmittedtodifferentpolishingsystems
AT juliawillersdreyer surfaceroughnessofmonolithiczirconiaceramicsubmittedtodifferentpolishingsystems
AT patriciadanesi surfaceroughnessofmonolithiczirconiaceramicsubmittedtodifferentpolishingsystems
AT anamariaspohr surfaceroughnessofmonolithiczirconiaceramicsubmittedtodifferentpolishingsystems
_version_ 1721302477292175360