Citation Information :
Janagaraj VD, Shivasubramanian L, Sekar V, Hariharan A. Influence of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Characteristics and Flexural Strength of Monolithic Zirconia: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (1):19-24.
Aim: The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of the finishing and polishing system on surface roughness, topography, and flexural strength of monolithic zirconia.
Materials and methods: A total of 20 samples were milled and sintered into bar-shaped specimens (16 × 4 × 1.6 mm) from a presintered yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP block). They were divided into two groups containing 10 each. The control group consisted of glazed untreated zirconia. The experimental group consisted of specimens whose surfaces were roughened using a red diamond-coated bur for 20 seconds, and then they were polished using a Diacera intraoral polishing kit. The samples were evaluated quantitatively for surface roughness using a surface profilometer and qualitatively by scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the flexural strength of the two groups was tested using an Instron universal testing machine. The results were statistically analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilcoxon test and Mann–Whitney U test.
Results: Scanning electron microscopic images showed evident differences in the topography of untreated, roughened, polished monolithic zirconia. The polished group had a lower average surface roughness value (Ra = 0.13 μm) when compared to untreated Zirconia. There was no statistically significant difference between the test and control group. The highest flexural strength was seen in the polished test group (max: 320.80 MPa). There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the test and control group.
Conclusion: Eve Diacera's zirconia polishing kit created a smoother and more uniform surface on monolithic zirconia. The flexural strength of roughened and polished monolithic zirconia was relatively higher than that of untreated zirconia. Under a SEM, there was an evident difference in the topography of untreated, roughened, and polished monolithic zirconia.
Clinical significance: Finishing and polishing procedures mainly enhance esthetics, aid in reducing surface irregularities, and maximize biocompatibility by limiting bacterial adherence to the surface, among other advantages. Therefore, finishing and polishing are crucial for the longevity of the restorations.
Amaya-Pajares SP, Ritter AV, Vera Resendiz C, et al. Effect of finishing and polishing on the surface roughness of four ceramic materials after occlusal adjustment. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28(6):382–396. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12222
Al Hamad KQ, Abu Al-Addous AM, Al-Wahadni AM, et al. 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. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13071
Alhabdan AA, Hejazi AAE. Comparison of surface roughness of ceramics after polishing with different intraoral polishing systems using profilometer and SEM. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2015;2(3):101–111. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2015.02.00050
Goo CL, Yap A, Tan K, et al. Effect of polishing systems on surface roughness and topography of monolithic zirconia. Oper Dent 2016;41(4):417–423. DOI: 10.2341/15-064-L
Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF. Surface evaluation of polishing techniques for new resilient CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28(1):56–66. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12174
Silva FP, Vilela ALR, Almeida MMG, et al. Surface topography, gloss and flexural strength of pressable ceramic after finishing-polishing protocols. Braz Dent J 2019;30(2):164–170. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201902101
Pradíes G, Godoy-Ruiz L, Özcan M, et al. Analysis of surface roughness, fracture toughness, and weibull characteristics of different framework-veneer dental ceramic assemblies after grinding, polishing, and glazing. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):e216–e221. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12653
Guazzato M, Albakry M, Quach L, et al. Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced dental ceramic. Dent Mater 2005;21(5):454–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.07.010
Sarikaya I, Güler AU. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(1):10–16. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000100004
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
Yondem I, Inan O. The effect of different surface finishing procedures on surface roughness and fracture toughness in all-ceramic restorations: the effect of different surface finishing procedures. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2011;8(2):437–445. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7402.2009.02454.x
Mai HN, Hong SH, Kim SH, et al. Effects of different finishing/polishing protocols and systems for monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and biofilm formation. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11(2):81. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.81
Chavali R, Lin CP, Lawson NC. Evaluation of different polishing systems and speeds for dental zirconia. J Prosthodont 2017;26(5):410–418. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12396
Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, et al. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater 2013;29(6):666–673. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.03.008
Camacho GB, Vinha D, Panzeri H, et al. Surface roughness of a dental ceramic after polishing with different vehicles and diamond pastes. Braz Dent J 2006;17(3):191–194. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000300003
Ahmad R, Wu BM, Morgano SM. Polishing mechanism and its effect on the mechanical properties of ceramic restorations - a review of the literature. Ann Denti Univ Malaya 2001;8(1):57–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22452/adum.vol8no1.10
Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Evaluation of various polishing systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(3):440–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.021
Ohkuma K, Kazama M, Ogura H. The grinding efficiency by diamond points developed for yttria partially stabilized zirconia. Dent Mater J 2011;30(4):511–516. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-152
Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, et al. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57(4):236–261. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001
Sasahara RM, Ribeiro Fda C, Cesar PF, et al. Influence of the finishing technique on surface roughness of dental porcelains with different microstructures. Oper Dent 2006;31(5):577–583. DOI: 10.2341/05-104
Steiner R, Beier US, Heiss-Kisielewsky I, et al. Adjusting dental ceramics: an in vitro evaluation of the ability of various ceramic polishing kits to mimic glazed dental ceramic surface. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113(6):616–622. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.007
Nakamura Y, Hojo S, Sato H. The effect of surface roughness on the Weibull distribution of porcelain strength. Dent Mater J 2010;29(1):30–34. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2009-059
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(4):258–269. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3
Flury S, Lussi A, Zimmerli B. Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35(4):470–481. DOI: 10.2341/09-373-L
Kang SH, Chang J, Son HH. Flexural strength and microstructure of two lithium disilicate glass ceramics for CAD/CAM restoration in the dental clinic. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(3):134–140. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.134
