JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11 journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpor

Review

Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol? Taˆnia Mara da Silva DDS, MD studenta,*, Ana Carolina Rodrigues Danzi Salvia DDS, MDa, Rodrigo Furtado de Carvalho DDS, MDb, Clovis Pagani DDS, MD, PhDa, Daniel Maranha da Rocha DDS, MD, PhDc, Eduardo Galera da Silva DDS, MD, PhDa a

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos School of Dentistry, UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil b Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Prosthesis Area, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos School of Dentistry, UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil c Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Brazil

article info

abstract

Article history:

Purpose: The execution of adjustments on ceramic restorations is sometimes necessary for

Received 20 November 2012

either correction of occlusion and/or inadequate contours or esthetical improvements.

Received in revised form

Clinically, the surfaces undergo weariness through fine grinding diamond burs which

11 February 2014

remove the superficial glazing layer. Several materials for ceramic polishing have been

Accepted 26 February 2014

used in an attempt to reach a satisfactory surface smoothness. The aim of this study was to

Available online xxx

perform a literature review on different polishing protocols of several dental ceramics. Study selection: This is a literature review performed through scientific articles published

Keywords:

between 2004 and 2012, indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed and Scielo databases. The study

Dental ceramics

selected and analyzed a total of 20 relevant articles that evaluated different types of

Polishing methods

ceramics, polishing treatment and surface roughness.

Superficial roughness

Results: After an extensive literature review, this study observed: 1 – after the rupture of the glazing layer due to the adjustments of the restorations, the best choice for the polishing of the surface will depend on the type of ceramics used; 2 – glazing procedure provide excellent results regarding to the superficial smoothness; however, if reglazing is impossible, either abrasive rubber cups/points or sandpaper discs followed by the use of diamond polishing pastes results in a satisfactory superficial smoothness; 3 – clinical studies that take into account the behavior of the protocols polishing are scarce and should be encouraged; 4 – the large number of variables influence the final outcome of polishing should be considered. Conclusions: The necessity in standardization of methodologies to enable a comparison among researches. # 2014 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author at: Avenida Engenheiro Francisco Jose´ Longo, 777, Jardim Sa˜o Dimas, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos, SP CEP: 12245-000, Brazil. Tel.: +55 12 8101 0308; fax: +55 12 3947 9010. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.M. da Silva), [email protected] (A.C.R.D. Salvia), [email protected] (R.F. de Carvalho), [email protected] (C. Pagani), [email protected] (D.M. da Rocha), [email protected] (E.G. da Silva). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001 1883-1958/# 2014 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

2

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents 1. 2. 3.

4.

1.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Classification of dental ceramics. 3.2. Grinding and polishing protocols Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Introduction

By working with ceramic restorations, the dentist often needs to perform clinical adjustments through wear by diamond burs, consequently removing the superficial glazing layer. These adjustments are needed when the restoration exhibits premature occlusal contacts and/or inadequate contours [1–3]. The rupture of the glazing layer increases the superficial roughness, leading to clinical problems: weariness of the antagonist tooth [4]; retention of microbial biofilm [5] and inflammation of the periodontal tissues; staining [6]; unsatisfactory esthetics [7] and smaller resistance to cracks propagation [2,8–11]. Because of these aforementioned reasons, the researchers have stated the use of a reglazing process [12] or polishing of the ceramic restorations [13] as alternatives which result in a greater superficial smoothness. The reglazing may be performed prior to the luting procedure and involves reheating the ceramics. However, not even is possible to execute such procedure, especially when adhesive ceramic restorations are being used, which demands that the occlusal adjustment be made after cementation [14]. In these cases, the polishing procedure is an important alternative [14–16]. The efficacy of the ceramic polishing systems is a controversial issue in literature. Several studies reported that the final surfaces obtained with the polishing procedure are not comparable with the final reglazing surfaces [17–20]. On the other hand, other authors have reported that the polishing systems did not exhibit the capacity of reaching surfaces similarly to those obtained after the glazing procedure [21]. Different alternative polishing techniques have been described for ceramic restorations [11,22,23]. Several polishing kits are available into dental market. These are composed by a great variety of materials, including: diamond burs, abrasive rubbers cups, felt wheels and diamond polishing pastes. The effect on the superficial roughness generated by the different adjustment [10] protocols followed by the polishing of ceramic restorations is of great interest for the dentist and the superficial roughness have been studied by several researchers [2,3,9–11,19,20,22,24]. This study proposes to show methods of polishing showing better performance. The proper polishing allows a lower retention of bacterial plaque and inflammation of the periodontal tissues, wear of antagonists teeth, more resistance to cracks propagation and better esthetic for the restorations. Considering the above information, the aim of this study was to perform a literature review on the different polishing protocols for the several dental glass ceramics.

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

2.

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Materials and methods

This is a literature review performed through scientific articles published between 2004 and 2012, indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed and Scielo databases. The search of databases was performed using the keywords: ceramics, polishing methods and surface roughness. Allowing the use of such keywords in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The inclusion criteria were studies related to methods for polishing the surface in several ceramics, the effect of the type of ceramic in the surface roughness and the effect of polishing in ceramic surface. We excluded studies that addressed other factors that were not related to the descriptors above. Also, we excluded the use of abstracts, by not providing full analysis of the studies presented. The present study found 45 articles with at least one of the criteria discussed. Thus, in this study selected and analyzed a total of 20 relevant articles that evaluated different types of ceramics, polishing treatment and surface roughness in the same research.

3.

Results

3.1.

Classification of dental ceramics

The structure and the mechanical properties of dental ceramics are the factors which are closely related to the polishing efficacy [26,27]. Dental ceramics can be classified into three main categories: glass, particle-reinforced glass, and polycrystalline ceramics [25–27]. Glass ceramics are those which best minimize the optical properties of enamel and dentin. Glass is composed of an atomic network that does not show a normal pattern for spacing (distance and angle) among them, and it has an amorphous structure. The glass contained in dental ceramics derivates mainly from the mineral group so-called feldspar and is based on silica (silicon oxide) and alumina (aluminum oxide) [27]. Therefore, the feldspathic ceramics belong to a family so-called aluminosilicate glasses [27]. Feldspar-base glasses are resistant to crystallization during firing presenting a long firing range and being biocompatible. In reinforced glass ceramic, filling particles are added to the glass composition to improve the mechanical properties and control the optical effects, such as: color, opalescence, and opacity [30]. These filling agents are generally crystalline, but they may also be glass particles with higher melting point. The compositions are based on two or more different materials

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11 journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

(phases) and are formally known as ‘‘composites’’ [2,37]. The first filling materials used in dental ceramics were the particles of the crystalline material so-called leucite [26,27]. These particles were added to create ceramics which could be successful when used on metallic infrastructure [28,29]. The particles for crystalline filling can be mechanically added to the glass, by mixing glass crystals and powder prior to the firing. In a recent approach, the filling particles are created within the glass object, after the piece formation. Next, a special thermal treatment is executed in the glass piece resulting in the precipitation and growth of the crystals from inside the glass [27]. Since these filling particles are chemically derived from glass atoms themselves, the composition of the remnant glass is altered. This aforementioned process is called ‘‘ceramization’’ [26]. Such ceramics, composed by these particles, are known as glass ceramics. The first glass ceramics commercialized, Dicor (Dentsply, York, USA), exhibited filling particles of crystal material so-called mica (55% volume) [30]. More recently, a glass ceramics containing 70% volume of lithium disilicate filling crystal was developed for dental uses (IPS Empress 2, now IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Polycrystalline ceramics do not have glass components. All their atoms are densely grouped in crystalline matrixes, which results in a material difficult to crack when compared to the less dense and more irregular atom network found in the glass ceramics. Thus, polycrystalline ceramics are generally more resistant than glass ceramics [27]. However, the former tend to be more opaque than glass ceramics and they are used as infrastructure materials, on which glass ceramics are applied, resulting in an improved esthetics [27]. According to the study developed by Sasahara et al. [9] the microstructure has great influence on the performance of the ceramics. Some ceramics are more easily glazed (that is, they reach a smoother surface after glazing). This is likely related to the composition of its glass matrix and its behavior under the heat generated in the glazing cycle. The leucite content may play an important role in the easiest polishing of these materials.

3.2.

Grinding and polishing protocols

The glazing and polishing are two options for the surface finishing of esthetic ceramics. Both techniques have drawn attention from numerous studies comparing the superficial aspects through using visual, microscopic, and profilometric analysis. The studies agreed that the glazing procedure can produce a polished ceramic surface. On the other hand, the polishing procedure may provide a surface showing characteristics more similar to the natural tooth. There are some authors who prefer the polishing procedures because their higher level of control during the finishing of the final surface; however, there is not a literature consensus on the ideal polishing protocol [31]. The mean roughness value (Ra) was the parameter mostly used by the authors evaluating the effect of the different protocols of ceramic polishing [2,3,9–11,19,20,22,24]. This parameter describes the texture of a surface and it can be define as the mean arithmetical value of all the absolute distances of the profile inside of the measuring length [2,32].

3

The polishing procedures involve some fundamental principles which allowed us to understand better their application in dentistry. The efficacy of the polishing devices is determined by several factors: the structure and mechanical properties of the substrate; hardness difference between the device and the substrate; the hardness, size and shape of the abrasive particles used with the device; the physical properties of the vehicle material used to apply the abrasive material (hardness, elasticity, flexibility, thickness, porosity); the velocity and pressure which the abrasive material is applied onto the substrate; the lubrication and the use of lubricants during the application of the abrasive material (water, glycerin, grease, vaseline) [33]. Nevertheless, in the several studies reviewed, it was possible to note the lack of detailed information regarding to the protocol used. Table 1 shows a sample of the studies used in this literature review. Asai et al. [34] compared four machined ceramic material submitted to either polishing or overglazing procedure. The specimens of glass, particle-reinforced and polycrystalline ceramics were polished with medium, fine and extra-fine abrasive rubber cups (Ceramdia, Morita, Tokyo, Japan), at a rotational speed of 4000 rpm for 3 min. The surfaces of overglazed specimens were homogenously smooth as opposed to the striated surfaces of the polished specimens, with no significant differences in the compressive fracture strength between the groups ( p > 0.05). Nevertheless, surface pores, which could act as starting points of crack growth, were observed even on the glazed specimens. As glazing was carried out on as-ground surfaces, it was likely that the coarse surface was not uniformly coated with the glazing material, thereby resulting in incomplete removal of surface defects. Similarly, Karayazgan et al. [35] observed a greatest superficial smoothness in the groups overglazing ( p = 0.16) and dual ionexchange ( p = 0.39), without statistically significant differences between them, when it was evaluated the adhesion of Candida albicans strains on glass ceramics, whereas the worst results were promoted by polishing ( p = 0.04) with diamond wheels (ECOMET 3, Buehler Ltd., IL, USA). Perhaps, the polishing method has not been successful due to the granulations of the diamond wheels (50 and 35 mm), or even the pressure (66.72 N) of 15 seconds and the rotational speed (350 rpm) applied over the specimen. On the other hand, Dalkiz et al. [23] reached unfavorable outcomes when overglazing procedure was employed on the ultra low-fusing and low-fusing feldspathic ceramic material (3.2; 3.7 mm). This fact may be related to both the deepness of the risks and the irregular superficial pattern. Probably, the second glazing cycle would have more difficult in removing the risks created by the diamond burs as efficiently as the first cycle. However, when it was applied the polishing method (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) followed by self-glaze, it was obtained a smoothest ceramic surface in both ceramic materials (0.9 and 0.6 mm). Probably, the four sequential polishing discs employed at a rotational speed of 15,000 rpm for 10 s, diminished the grooves over the specimens, facilitating the activity of self-glaze. Scientific papers also report acceptable superficial smoothness when the system Sof-Lex was employed [2,11,16,22, 28,36,44]. However, this system presents some difficult in the polishing of irregular surfaces (e.g. occlusal surfaces), consequently limiting its indication. Similar results to those

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Articles

Dental ceramics

Grinding

Polishing protocols Diafix-oral (Kerr, Peterborough, UK); MPS gel; Diamond polisher; Ceramiste silicon polisher;

Conclusions

IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)

Tungsten carbide bur

1. 2. 3. 4.

No differences were detectable between the methods applied to ceramic restorations with respect to roundness of contours and surface roughness

Albakry et al. [41]

IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)

Diamond wheel (Isomet, Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL, USA)

1. Untreated (control group); 2. Silicon carbide paper (220, 320, 500, 800, 1200) + diamond paste; 3. Overglazed; 4. Silicon carbide paper (180, 220) + diamond discs (Grinder-Polisher, Buehler, UK Ltd, Coventry, UK); 5. Aluminum oxide sandblasted.

The polished and untreated groups showed higher roughness values, and the lower roughness values showed ground and sandblasted groups

Glavina et al. [44]

Vita Mark 2I (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany)



1. Sof-Lex discs (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA); 2. Hawe brushes (Hawe Neos Dental, Bioggio, Switzerland); 3. Hawe brushes and diamond paste Diabrill (Oralia Dental GmbH, Kostanz, Germany); 4. Politip-P rubber cups (Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

1. The best surface smoothness was achieved with Sof-Lex discs polishing system 2. All other methods are clinically acceptable

Ahmad et al. [42]

Vitadur Alpha Enamel (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)

Diamond abrasive wheel (70 mm)

1. Alumina polishing system (AXIS Dental Corp, Irving, Tex); 2. Silicon carbide polishing system (Universal Ceramic Polisher, Brasseler, USA, Savannah, Ga); 3. Diamond polishing system (Dialite, Brasseler, USA); 4. Self-glaze; 5. Overglazed.

1. Polishing with diamond abrasive wheel alone significantly reduced flexural strength 2. Overglazing did not change the flexural strength of aluminous ceramics 3. Self-glaze did not result in significant improvement in flexural strength

Camacho et al. [37]

Ceramco 2 (Ceramco Inc., Burlington, NJ, USA)

Sandpapers of decreasing abrasiveness (280, 400, 600 grift)

1. Self-glaze; 2. Crystar Paste (Kota Ind. e Com. Ltda., Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil); 3. Diamond Excel (FGM Products Odontolo´gicos, Joinville, SC, Brazil). The polishing pastes were used with four different vehicles: a. Dental rubber cup (Webbed Latch; DentAmerica Ind., Bedford Circle, CA, USA); b. Robinson bristle brush (One Gross; DentAmerica Ind.); c. Felt wheel (Mini Felt Wheel; Kota Ind. e Com. Ltda.); d. Buff discs (SuperSnap Buff Discs; Shofu Inc., Quioto, Japan).

1. Robinson bristle brush, felt wheel and buff disc were efficient vehicles to be used in association with a diamond polishing paste 2. Both pastes provided similar and efficient polishing

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Jung et al. [45]

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

4

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Table 1 – Studies used in this literature review.

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

Articles

Dental ceramics

Grinding

Polishing protocols

Conclusions

Al-Wahadni et al. [43]

1. IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), 2. In-Ceram/ Vitadur Alpha (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)



1. Unglazed; 2. Adjustment kit Shofu Dental (Shofu Dental GmbH, Ratingen, Germany); 3. Overglazed.

1. Significant differences in surface roughness were observed between the ceramics and among the finishing techniques 2. Unglazed IPS Empress 2 is rougher than unglazed In-Ceram/Vitadur Alpha

Kou et al. [16]

1. Vita In-Ceram Alumina (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany); 2. Vita In-Ceram Zirconia (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany); 3. IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); 4. Procera AllCeram (Nobel Biocare AB, Go¨teborg, Sweden); 5. Denzir (Cad.esthetics AB, Skelleftea, Sweden); 6. Vita Mark II (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany).

Diamond rotary cutting instrument (medium 107– 126 mm; fine 76 mm; extra-fine 46 mm) (Z & B, Berlin, Germany)

Sof-Lex discs (100, 29, 14 and 5 mm) (3 M, Dental Products, St Paul, MN, USA)

1. Polishing of Denzir, IPS Empress 2 and InCeram Zirconia made the surface smoother compared with the state after grinding 2. To polish flat and convex surface of the materials, the Sof-Lex system is applicable

Sasahara et al. [9]

1. IPS d.Sign (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schann, Liechtenstein); 2. Finesse (Dentsply, Ceramco, Burlington, NJ, USA); 3. Super Porcelain EX 3 (Noritake Co Ltd, Nagoya, Japan); 4. Symbio (Degussa Dental, GmgH & Co, KG, Rosbach, Germany).

Sandpapers of decreasing abrasiveness (180, 320, 600 grift)

1. Self-glaze; 2. rubber + glaze–polishing with gray and pink rubber wheels (Komet, Gebr Brasseler, Germany) before self-glaze; 3. Second glaze – glaze, ground with fine (3098F-KG Sorensen, Brazil) and extra-fine (3098FF-KG Sorensen, Brazil) diamond burs, white stone (Shofu Dental Corporation, USA) and a second glaze cycle; 4. Rubber wheels – after the glaze layer was broken as described in 3, polished with rubber wheels gray, pink and ‘‘glaze’’ (Komet, Gebr Brasseler GmbH & Co KG, Germany), using a moderate pressure; 5. Rubber wheels + diamond paste – the procedures described in 4, using moderate pressure and diamond paste (KG Sorensen, Germany) applied with a felt wheel (Komet, Gebr Brasseler, Germany); 6. Sandpaper discs – after the glaze layer was broken as described in 3, polishing with Sol-Lex medium, fine and extra-fine sandpaper discs (3 M ESPE, St Paul, USA) using light pressure; 7. Sandpaper discs + diamond paste – after the procedures described in 6, polishing with a felt wheel using moderate pressure and the same diamond paste as group 5.

1. The best choice for surface treatment depends on the porcelain used 2. Porcelains with lower leucite content presented lower roughness compared to those with higher leucite content, after polishing with rubber or discs followed by diamond pastes

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Table 1 (Continued )

5

Articles

Dental ceramics

Grinding

Polishing protocols

Conclusions

Vitadur Alpha (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)

Medium-grift diamond bur (Diatech Dental AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland)

1. Overglaze; 2. Adjustment kit Shofu Dental (Shofu Dental GmbH, Ratingen, Germany); 3. Polishing wheel Cera Master (Shofu Dental GmbH); 4. Polishing stick Diamond Stick (Shofu Dental GmbH); 5. Polishing paste Ultra II (Shofu Dental GmbH); 6. Combination 2 and 4; 7. Combination 2 and 5; 8. Combination 3 and 4; 9. Combination 3 and 5.

The use of an adjustment kit alone or preceding polishing paste application created surfaces as smooth as overglazed samples

Tholt et al. [39]

1. AllCeram (Degussa, Dental, GmgH & Co, KG, Rosbach, Germany); 2. IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); Vitadur Alpha (Vita Zahnfabrik GmbH, Germany)

Diamond abrasive wheel (90 mm, 38 mm, 25 mm)

1. Self-glaze; 2. Diamond bur: 3195, 3195F e 3195 FF (KG Sorensen) + Eve system (RA 105 Diamond, Eve, Ernst Vetter, GmbH, Germany); 3. Diamond bur + Identoflex polishing system (Identoflex, Buchs SG, Switzerland); 4. Identoflex polishing system; 5. Diamond bur + Ceramiste system (Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan).

The 3 brands of ceramic materials tested reacted differently when submitted to the same polishing procedure

Al-Shammery et al. [38]

Vitablocs Vita Mark 2 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)



1. Sof-Lex discs: coarse, medium, fine and super-fine (3 M ESPE, St Paul, USA); 2. Silicon carbide impregnated rubber polishing wheel (Ruwa cream-pol, Associated Dental Products Ltd., Swindon, UK); 3. Wheel shape diamond impregnated polishing bur (Shofu Ceramiste Points, Shofu Dental Corporation, San Marcos, USA); Diamond impregnated polishing wheel (Diafix-oral, Kerr UK Ltd., Peterborough, UK).

1. Sof-Lex discs provided the better means of reducing surface roughness 2. Wheel polishing was ineffective in reducing surface roughness of the material

Karan et al. [22]

1. IPS d.sign (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); 2. IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); 3. IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

A spiral 12-fluted tungsten carbide bur (Dentsply, Surrey, UK)

1. Polishing wheel Cera Master (Shofu Dental, Menlo Park, CA) and polishing paste (Ultra II, Shofu Dental, Menlo Park, CA), using a rubber cup; 2. Sof-Lex discs: coarse, medium, fine and extra-fine (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany)

Use of polishing discs (Sof-Lex) was more effective for smoothing the porcelain surfaces compared with use of a polishing wheel and polishing paste

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Sarac et al. [18]

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

6

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Table 1 (Continued )

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

Articles

Dental ceramics

Grinding

Polishing protocols

Conclusions

Lohbauer et al. [40]

IPS e.max1 Press (Ivoclar, Liechtenstein)

Silicon carbide paper (4000, 1000, 800, 500, 320, 120 grit)

1. Polishing paste; 2. Bur

Dependency of fracture strength on surface roughness is neither determined by crystallite size of the glass ceramic material nor by filler sizes of the resin composite

Werneck et al. [20]

IPS Classic (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein)

Diamond bur 4138 FF (KG Sorensen, SP, Brazil)

1. Overglazed; 2. Edenta polishing system (EXA-Cerapol 352/362, Cerapol Super 372, Edenta, Switzerland); 3. Tri Hawk system (Tri Hawk, Canada).

Both of finishing and polishing procedures promoted a smooth surface similar to glazed surface

Dalkiz et al. [23]

1. Vita Omega 900 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany); 2. Finesse (Dentsply, Ceramco, York, PA)

Medium-grift diamond bur (836– 11, Brasseler, Savannah, GA, USA)

1. Self-glaze; 2. Overglaze; 3. Sof-Lex discs (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) 1982C, 1982M, 1982 F and 1982 SF grift; 4. Fine diamond disc grinding (835-11, Brasseler, USA) + Polishing + Self glaze; 5. Coarse diamond disc grinding (837-11, Brasseler, USA) + polishing + self glaze; 6. Sof-Lex discs + Self glaze.

The smoothest surfaces were obtained with polishing prior to self-glaze, for both ceramic types

Asai et al. [34]

1. Vita Mark 2 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany); 2. ProCAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); 3. IPS Empress CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); 4. IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

Diamond burs (Meister Point, Noritake, Aichi, Japan)

1. Diamond rubber polishing points Ceramida (8M, 8 F e 8 SF; Morita, Tokyo, Japan); Overglaze

Overglaze surfaces appeared smoother than polished surfaces

Aykent et al. [36]

Vitablocs Mark 2 (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany)

Abrasive sandpaper 600 – grift (3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)

1. Diamond burs (46 mm, 25 mm – GEBR Brasseler GmbH, Lemgo, Germany); 2. Sof-Lex dics: coarse, medium, fine (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA); 3. Silicon carbide impregnated rubber polishing wheel (Ceramiste Standard: Shofu, Inc); 4. Felt wheels (Super Snap Buff; Shofu, Inc.) + diamond paste (Diamond Stick; Shofu, Inc).

Sof-Lex and Shofu polishing systems produce smoother surfaces

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Table 1 (Continued )

7

Articles

Conclusions

VMK 95 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany)

Dental ceramics

Diamond abrasive wheel (70 mm)

Grinding

1. Natural glaze (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany); 2. Overglaze (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany); 3. Dual ion exchange – slurries ranging from 10 mol% lithium chloride (LiCl) to 90 mol% sodium chloride (NaCl) in distilled water, heat-treated at 750 8C for 30 min and 450 8C for 30 min; 4. Polishing – 50 mm diamond wheel (ECOMET 3, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL, USA); 35 mm diamond wheel and 15 mm diamond paste (Cosmedent Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) applied on a cloth wheel (ECOMET 3, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL, USA).

Polished and natural-glaze specimens showed rougher surface characteristics than overglazed and dual-ion-exchanged specimens

Scota et al. [24]

1. Super Porcelain EX-3 (Noritake, Nagoya, Japan); 2. Ceramco 3 (Dentsply, Burlington, NJ, USA); 3. Duceram Plus (Ducera Dental, Rosbach, Germany); 4. Heraceram (Heraeus Kulzer, Wehrhein, Germany).

Diamond burs (4138, 4138F e 4138FF (KG Sorensen, Barueri, SP, Brazil)

1. Self-glaze; 2. Edenta polishing system (Edenta, St. Gallen, Switzerland); 3. Komet polishing system (Komet, Lemgo, Germany).

1. The polished surfaces with Edenta and Komet systems did not reproduce the smooth surface of the glazed surfaces Edenta system provided less roughness surface

Sarikaya et al. [2]

1. VMK 95 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Germany); 2. Ceramco 3 (Degudent GmbH, USA); 3. Matchmaker MC (Schottlander, RU); 4. VITABLOCS Mark II (Vita Zahnfabrik, Germany).

Abrasive sandpaper (600 grift) during 10 s on a 300 rpm

1. Control–no surface treatment; 2. Self-glaze; 3. Sof-Lex discs (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA); 4. NTI CeraGlaze polishing kit (NTI-Kahla GmbH, Germany); 5. Dialite II polishing kit, (Brasseler, USA); 6. Sparkle diamond polishing paste (Pulpdent, USA); 7. Zircate zirconium silicate cleaningprophy paste (Dentsply Int. Inc., USA); 8. Prisma Gloss aluminum oxide polishing paste (Dentsply, Int. Inc., USA); 9. Sof-Lex + Sparkle; 10. Sof-Lex + Zircate; 11. Sof-Lex + Prisma Gloss.

Polishing kits (Dialite and NTI CeraGlaze) and discs (Sof-Lex) were effective in surface smoothness

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Polishing protocols

Karayazgan et al. [35]

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11

8

Please cite this article in press as: da Silva TM, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?. J Prosthodont Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001

Table 1 (Continued )

JPOR-228; No. of Pages 11 journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

obtained with the system Sof-Lex has been observed with the system Jota (Jota AG Rotary Instruments, Ru¨thi, Switzerland), when it was applied on the ceramics Vitablocs Mark 2 (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa¨ckingen, Germany) and IPS Empress CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (0.37; 0.33 mm) [39]. Specimens of an experimental fluormica based glass ceramic polished with the system Sof-Lex were statistically significantly less rough (2.76 mm) than the as-machined (4.84 mm) or the group Diafix-oral (Kerr, Peterborough, UK) (4.00 mm), without statistically significant differences between the last two groups [38]. For Vita Mark 2, in its as-machined state (4.45 mm), after polishing with Sof-Lex (2.42 mm) or using polishing wheels (Diafix-oral) (1.50 mm), there were highly statistically significant differences among them [38]. Also, according to Jung et al. [45], the system Diafix-oral promoted low surface roughness on the ceramic IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (smooth surfaces in 64.5– 77.3% of the specimens). Surfaces as smooth as glazed specimens (

Polishing for glass ceramics: which protocol?

The execution of adjustments on ceramic restorations is sometimes necessary for either correction of occlusion and/or inadequate contours or esthetica...
365KB Sizes 3 Downloads 3 Views