Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 1846    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 22-28
Effect of two different finishing systems on surface roughness of feldspathic and fluorapatite porcelains in ceramo-metal restorations: Comparative in vitro study


1 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, D.J. College of Dental Sciences and Research, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Orthodontic and Dentofacial Orthopedic, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India

Date of Web Publication6-May-2014

Correspondence Address:
Sumeet Soni
Department of Orthodontic and Dentofacial Orthopedic, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.127211

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Objective: The objective of present study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate and compare the effect of two ceramic finishing systems and diamond polishing paste on surface texture of two ceramic materials. Methodology: The 40 test specimens were randomly divided into two main groups (Group I and Group II). Which were subsequently veneered with feldspathic porcelain and fluorapatite leucite porcelain systems respectively. The samples in Test group I and Test group II were subjected to different abrasion and finishing systems (Soft Lex and White silicon and grey rubber respectively). The surface roughness of all the four groups was assessed qualitatively using the scanning Electron Microscope and profilometer. Results: The surface roughness of Feldspathic and fluorapetite porcelain increased after abrasion and finishing as compared to auto-glazed porcelin. The surface roughness was more in grey rubber disc group (Gp Ib) as compared to the soft lex disc groups. After polishing with the diamond paste, there was reduction in the surface roughness of both the disc groups. The Mean Ra values of the Feldspathic porcelain at three intervals were 0.52 ± 0.06, 0.54 ± 0.06, 0.32 ± 0.06 and 0.50 ± 0.04, 1.25 ± 0.10, 0.45 ± 0.6 respectively for grey rubber disc and soft lex groups. The Mean Ra values of Fluorapetite porcelain at three intervals were 0.40 ± 0.06, 0.52 ± 0.06, 0.30 ± 0.03 and 0.41 ± 0.04, 1.17 ± 0.09, 0.39 ± 0.07 respectively for grey rubber disc and soft lex groups. Discussion and Conclusion: The surface roughness was less in the polished samples as compared to the auto-glazed porcelain. The findings were more reinforcing in the soft lex group as compared to the white/grey rubber disc group. Between the two porcelain systems, the Fluorapatite leucite porcelain specimens exhibited better surface smoothness than feldspathic porcelain.


Keywords: Ceramo metal restoration, feldspathic, fluorapatite, surface roughness


How to cite this article:
Anmol C, Soni S. Effect of two different finishing systems on surface roughness of feldspathic and fluorapatite porcelains in ceramo-metal restorations: Comparative in vitro study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2014;4:22-8

How to cite this URL:
Anmol C, Soni S. Effect of two different finishing systems on surface roughness of feldspathic and fluorapatite porcelains in ceramo-metal restorations: Comparative in vitro study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Nov 19];4:22-8. Available from: http://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2014/4/1/22/127211



   Introduction Top


Dental ceramics are widely used in dental practice as material of choice for porcelain-fused-to-metal or all-ceramic restorations in crown and bridge prosthodontics and as laminate veneers in cosmetic dentistry, because of their natural appearance. [1],[2]

Porcelain fused to metal restorations account for more than 80% of the restorations made world-wide. [3] These are popularly used in prosthodontics because of their refractive nature, hardness, biocompatibility and chemical inertness. [1] These have metal substructures supporting a ceramic veneer that is mechanically and chemically bonded. Among the various types of veneering porcelain available for metal ceramic restorations, the traditional feldspathic porcelain is still widely used despite numerous scientific reports of their harmful behavior regarding increased wear of the opposing dentition. The fluorapatite leucite porcelain claims to have smoother surface topography, lower abrasiveness toward the enamel and improved color which accounts for its increased use in recent times. [4]

The strong life-like appearance of the completed metal ceramic restoration results from a surface glaze, formed on additional firing of the restoration. [2],[3],[4],[5] However very often the chair side adjustment of ceramic for shape, contour and occlusion results in the surface roughness of these restoration. [6],[7],[8] In the clinical set up it is not possible to reglaze the restorations due to practical constraints. In such situations the surfaces tends to become The rough ceramic surfaces abrade opposing teeth and/or restorations. [9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] Rough porcelain surfaces also significantly reduce the strength of ceramic restorations and make them prone to fracture. [2],[12] The roughness of intraoral hard surfaces is a major cause for adhesion and retention of oral microorganisms. This will lead to excessive plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, increased surface staining and poor or suboptimal esthetics of the restored teeth and thereby increasing the risk of dental caries and periodontal disease. [3],[17] In such situations, roughness must be smoothened to render the surface acceptable to the patient and make it less likely to abrade opposing tooth structure or restorative

materials. [13],[14],[15],[18],[19] The effective finishing and polishing of dental restorations not only result in optimal aesthetics and longevity of restored teeth, but also provide for acceptable oral health of soft-tissues and marginal integrity of the restorative interface. [20],[21],[22],[23]

The adjusting, contouring and finishing procedures for metal ceramic restorations play a critical role in achieving both proper function and optimal esthetics. Thus it has become imperative to consider the various available ceramic finishing systems to recreate the lost smoothness of the abraded surfaces to obtain optimal biocompatibility. A number of mechanical polishing techniques are described in the literature and have been compared with the gold standard given by the original glaze. Some authors initially demonstrated the superior smoothness of glazed

porcelain. [5],[24],[25],[26],[27] Others, however, favor mechanical polishing and concluded that intraoral polishing of porcelain can equal or surpass the smoothness of glazed porcelain. [6],[8],[28],[29],[30] Today, it is recognized that improved esthetic results are obtained by polishing. [28],[31],[32],[33] The ultimate goal of mechanical finishing and polishing is the attainment of a well-polished surface which can substitute for glazed porcelain.

The studies comparing the efficacy of various smoothening and polishing systems for metal ceramic restorations are carried out either qualitatively or quantitatively. Most studies have focused on the qualitative analysis of the ceramic surface. [5],[8],[27],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38] Very few studies have examined the surface quantitatively. [30],[39],[40]

Some studies have both qualitative and quantitative assessment following different finishing procedures. [25],[29],[31],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] The analysis of the surface both qualitatively and quantitatively can aid in obtaining better inferences.

In light of the above, the present in vitro study was designed to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate and compare the effect of two ceramic finishing systems and diamond polishing paste had on the surface texture of two ceramic materials used for ceramo-metal restorations.


   Methodology Top


The present study was the comparative in vitro study, carried out to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative effect of two different finishing systems on the surface roughness of two different type of porcelain systems.

The totals of forty test patterns were fabricated using the custom made metal mold to standardize the specimen shape and dimensions. The dimensions of the patterns were 10 mm width and 2 mm thickness. The test specimens were then air abraded and subsequently steam cleaned to remove surface impurities.

The test specimens were randomly divided into two main groups (Group I and Group II) with twenty samples in each group. The Group I and Group II were subsequently veneered with feldspathic porcelain (Ivoclar-IPS Classic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein, Germany) and fluorapatite leucite porcelain systems (Ivoclar-d sign, Ivoclar Vivadent kG, Liechtenstein, Germany) respectively. All specimens were subjected to auto-glazing according to the manufacturer's guidelines to simulate the surface conditions after intraoral adjustments.

Following the autoglazing, the samples in test Group I (Feldspathic) and test Group II (fluorapatite) were further divided into two subgroups (Ia, Ib and IIa, IIb) and subjected to different abrasion and finishing systems as underlined in [Table 1].
Table 1: Description of surface finishing systems


Click here to view


The finished test samples (Gp Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb) were polished with the Yeti diamond paste (Yeti diamond products) along with rubber prophy cup for 30 s.

The surface roughness of all the four groups was assessed qualitatively using the scanning electron microscope (SEM) (JEOL, ASM 6360, Japan) and quantitative evaluation was made using profilometer (Ra values). The assessment was made at three intervals-after autoglazing, after abrasion and finishing, after polishing with diamond paste.

Statistical analysis

The data was entered in the Microsoft Excel and analyzed using the SPSS version 19.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA). The descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation and the difference of the mean "Ra" values for the average surface roughness of the ceramic materials between the two different abrasion systems was analyzed using the unpaired t-test. The level of significance was fixed at 0.05.


   Results Top


The qualitative assessment (SEM) of the surface roughness of the feldspathic porcelain group at three intervals has been depicted in [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3] respectively. The surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain increased after abrasion and finishing when compared with the initial assessment done after auto-glazing. The surface roughness was more in the white and grey rubber disc group (Gp Ib) when compared with the soft-lex disc groups (Gp Ia). After polishing with the diamond paste, there was reduction in the surface roughness of both the groups. However the surface roughness was more in white rubber group when compared with soft-lex group.
Figure 1: Surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain (Gp I) following the autoglazing

Click here to view
Figure 2: Surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain following the abrasion and finishing with different systems

Click here to view
Figure 3: Surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain following the polishing

Click here to view


The qualitative assessment of the fluorapetite porcelain showed similar findings as the feldspathic porcelain after autoglazing, finishing with different type of systems (IIa and IIb) and polishing with diamond paste. However, the surface roughness was less in the fluorapetite porcelain when compared with feldspathic porcelain [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6].
Figure 4: Surface roughness of fluorapetite porcelain (Gp II) following the autoglazing

Click here to view
Figure 5: Surface roughness of fluorapetite porcelain following the abrasion and finishing with different systems

Click here to view
Figure 6: Surface roughness of fluor apetite porcelain following the polishing with diamond paste

Click here to view


The quantitative assessment of the surface roughness at three intervals for the feldspathic and fluorapetite porcelains were carried out using the profilometer and recorded as Ra mean values. The mean Ra values of the two different subgroups of feldspathic porcelain (Gp Ia and Gp Ib) at three intervals - after auto-glazing, after abrasion, finishing and after polishing are shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Mean Ra values of the two different subgroups of feldspathic porcelain (Gp Ia and Gp Ib) at three intervals


Click here to view


The mean Ra values of the two different subgroups of fluorapetite porcelain (Gp IIa and Gp IIb) at three intervals - after auto-glazing, after abrasion, finishing and after polishing are shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: Mean Ra values of the two different subgroups of fluorapetite porcelain (Gp IIa and Gp IIb) at three intervals


Click here to view


The difference of the mean "Ra" values for the average surface roughness of the ceramic materials between the two different abrasion systems (soft-lex and grey rubber disc) was significant for feldspathic (Gp Ia, Ib) and fluorapetite porcelains (Gp IIa, IIb).

The difference between the two porcelain systems (feldspathic and fluorapatite leucite) when finished with similar finishing systems, i.e. either with soft-lex or with White silicon and grey rubber followed by diamond polishing was non-significant. The test of significance between Ia and IIa showed P = 0.151 and between Ib and IIb showed P = 0.628 denoting non-significant difference between the subgroups.


   Discussion Top


Dental ceramic technology is one of the fastest growing areas of dental material research and development due to its ability to closely match natural tooth color, biocompatibility, high resistance to wear and chemical inertness. The esthetic appearance of ceramic restorations is attributable to surface texture of the restoration, which is determined by the autoglazing process. However, the chair side adjustment of ceramic restorations for shape, contour, occlusion and surface finish often result in loss of the auto glaze layer and create a rough surface. [31],[35],[46],[47],[48] The rough porcelain surface is prone to adhesion and retention of oral microorganisms causing excessive plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, increased surface staining and poor esthetics of the restored teeth and thereby increasing the risk of dental caries and periodontal disease. [47],[48],[49] Hence, it has been recommended by many authors that the roughened surface must be either reglazed or polished to produce the smoothest surface possible. [8],[28],[29],[30],[48],[50]

A number of mechanical polishing techniques are described in the literature and were compared with the gold standard given by the original glaze. Studies comparing the efficacy of various smoothening and polishing systems for metal ceramic restorations are carried out either qualitatively or qualitatively. In the present study, the parameter of surface texture was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, in two different porcelain systems (feldspathic [Group I] and fluorapatite leucite [Group II]) using SEM and profilometer respectively.

Among the various types of porcelain available for porcelain fused to metal systems traditional feldspathic porcelain allowed systematic control of sintering temperature and thermal expansion co-efficient in harmony with the substructure alloy used. Fluorapatite leucite porcelain claims to have lower abrasiveness toward the enamel because of the structural arrangement of the fluorapatite crystals similar to the hydroxyl apatite crystals of the tooth enamel, better color quality and smooth surface topography.

In the present study, the thickness of the metal substructure was 2 mm in contrast to the thickness used in most clinical situations. This was to facilitate the better handling of the test specimens as required by the testing equipment employed in this study namely the SEM and profilometer. To ensure uniform thickness of the veneered porcelain, each sample was measured at multiple points using an Iwanson's Gauge.

In the present study, SEM studies were used to visualize and compare the surface profile at initial recording (Autoglazing), after abrasion and finishing and after polishing in the two porcelain test systems employed. The SEM investigation provided minor details such as voids and air bubbles, undetectable by visual inspection. The two groups of auto glazed porcelain test samples were subjected to surface texture analysis quantitatively by employing a profilometer (Taylor Hobson, Talysurf, UK) for obtaining first sets of values. Profilometer is a contact stylus instrument used to measure surface profiles and roughness. A mean roughness profile (Ra) was determined of each specimen to describe the overall roughness of the surface.

The qualitative and quantitative analysis showed that within the conditions of the study, surface texture of the Feldspathic porcelain and fluorapatite leucite porcelain samples after finishing with different abrasive systems and polishing with diamond polishing paste was superior to auto glazed porcelain samples. The results of this study are in agreement with the work of Raimondo et al., [36] who in an in vitro investigation found that two of the polishing paste systems produce a surface equal to or better than oven glazing. Klausner et al., [6] had similar findings in favor of polishing porcelain. Further the soft-lex discs produced smoother surface when compared with the white and grey rubber disc for both Feldspathic and fluorapetite porcelain. The findings are in agreement with the findings of works of Monasky and Taylor [11] and Wiley. [16]

Between the two porcelain systems tested, the surface texture of the fluorapatite leucite porcelain samples when compared with feldspathic porcelain samples using SEM photomicrographs was superior. Fluorapatite leucite porcelain being ultra-low fusing porcelain is composed of fine leucite crystals dispersed in a glass matrix. It has a smaller particle size and produces a smoother surface topography when compared with the traditional feldspathic porcelain. [4] The superior surface texture of the fluorapatite leucite porcelain samples when compared with feldspathic porcelain samples can thus be attributed.

The study has the inherent limitation in the sense that only two porcelain systems were taken into consideration in the present investigation, however recently, hydrothermal low fusing porcelain system with a single glass phase and no crystal phase has been introduced to overcome the damaging wear of enamel. Further in the present study the effect of only two finishing systems (soft-lex discs and white silicon and grey rubber) and one polishing paste (Diamond polishing paste) were observed. There is a need for further research with inclusion of recently introduced new porcelain systems and surface evaluation using other finishing systems and polishing pastes such as Brasseler, Shofu-kit etc., The findings of this study can form a basis for future studies incorporating the above considerations


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that the surface roughness was less in the polished samples when compared with the auto-glazed porcelain. The findings were more reinforcing in the soft-lex group when compared with the white/grey rubber disc group. Between the two porcelain systems tested in this study, the fluorapatite leucite porcelain specimens exhibited better surface smoothness than feldspathic porcelain.

 
   References Top

1.Anusavice KJ. Phillips Science of Dental Materials. 11 th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.; 1996.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Me Lean JW. Dental Ceramics: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Ceramics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1983.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Christensen GJ. The use of porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations in current dental practice: A survey. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Naylor WP. Introduction to Metal Ceramic Technology. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Campbell SD. Evaluation of surface roughness and polishing techniques for new ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:563-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Klausner LH, Cartwright CB, Charbeneau GT. Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:157-62.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Magne P, Oh WS, Pintado MR, DeLong R. Wear of enamel and veneering ceramics after laboratory and chairside finishing procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:669-79.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Sulik WD, Plekavich EJ. Surface finishing of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:217-21.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.Clelland NL, Agarwala V, Knobloch LA, Seghi RR. Relative wear of enamel opposing low-fusing dental porcelain. J Prosthodont 2003;12:168-75.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Derand P, Vereby P. Wear of low-fusing dental porcelains. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:460-3.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Monasky GE, Taylor DF. Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25:299-306.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Morrow RM, Brown CE, Larkin JD, Bernui R, Rudd KD. Evaluation of methods for polishing porcelain denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:222-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Newitter DA, Schlissel ER, Wolff MS. An evaluation of adjustment and postadjustment finishing techniques on the surface of porcelain-bonded-to-metal crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:388-95.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Olivera AB, Matson E, Marques MM. The effect of glazed and polished ceramics on human enamel wear. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:547-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Palmer DS, Barco MT, Pelleu GB Jr, McKinney JE. Wear of human enamel against a commercial castable ceramic restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:192-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Wiley MG. Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:133-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:664-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:320-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Obregon A, Goodkind RJ, Schwabacher WB. Effects of opaque and porcelain surface texture on the color of ceramometal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:330-40.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Goldstein RE. Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:305-18, 210-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Henry PJ, Johnston JF, Mitchell DF. Tissue changes beneath fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:937-47.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:613-27.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: A state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:379-97, ix.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Patterson CJ, McLundie AC, Stirrups DR, Taylor WG. Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:383-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Patterson CJ, McLundie AC, Stirrups DR, Taylor WG. Efficacy of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring surface finish after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:402-6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Podshadley AG, Harrison JD. Rat connective tissue response to pontic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:110-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Schuh C, Kinast EJ, Mezzomo E, Kapczinski MP. Effect of glazed and polished surface finishes on the friction coefficient of two low-fusing ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:245-52.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Brewer JD, Garlapo DA, Chipps EA, Tedesco LA. Clinical discrimination between autoglazed and polished porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:631-4.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Haywood VB, Heymann HO, Scurria MS. Effects of water, speed, and experimental instrumentation on finishing and polishing porcelain intra-orally. Dent Mater 1989;5:185-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Scurria MS, Powers JM. Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:174-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.al-Wahadni A, Martin DM. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: A literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 1998;64:580-3.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Jacobi R, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. A comparison of the abrasiveness of six ceramic surfaces and gold. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:303-9.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Pascal M, Belser U. Bonded Porcelain Restorations in the Anterior Dentition. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 2002, 2003.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Smith GM. Three-body wear associated with three ceramics and enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:476-81.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Alkhiary YM, Morgano SM, Giordano RA. Effects of acid hydrolysis and mechanical polishing on surface residual stresses of low-fusing dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:133-42.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Raimondo RL Jr, Richardson JT, Wiedner B. Polished versus autoglazed dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:553-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Sarac D, Sarac YS, Yuzbasioglu E, Bal S. The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:122-8.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Schlissel ER, Newitter DA, Renner RR, Gwinnett AJ. An evaluation of postadjustment polishing techniques for porcelain denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:258-65.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Jarvis J, Zinelis S, Eliades T, Bradley TG. Porcelain surface roughness, color and gloss changes after orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthod 2006;76:274-7.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.Ward MT, Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of opalescent porcelains after polishing. Oper Dent 1995;20:106-10.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Fuzzi M, Zaccheroni Z, Vallania G. Scanning electron microscopy and profilometer evaluation of glazed and polished dental porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:452-8.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Goldstein GR, Barnhard BR, Penugonda B. Profilometer, SEM, and visual assessment of porcelain polishing methods. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:627-34.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.Haywood VB, Heymann HO, Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Andreaus SB. Polishing porcelain veneers: An SEM and specular reflectance analysis. Dent Mater 1988;4:116-21.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]    
44.Martínez-Gomis J, Bizar J, Anglada JM, Samsó J, Peraire M. Comparative evaluation of four finishing systems on one ceramic surface. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:74-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Smith GA, Wilson NH. The surface finish of trimmed porcelain. Br Dent J 1981;151:222-4.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]    
46.Al-Wahadni AM, Martin DM. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of glazed, unglazed and refinished dental porcelain on an opposing material. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:538-46.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.Barghi N, King CJ, Draughn RA. A study of porcelain surfaces as utilized in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1975;34:314-9.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Barghi N, Alexander L, Draugh RA. When to glaze - An electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:648-53.  Back to cited text no. 48
[PUBMED]    
49.Clayton JA, Green E. Roughnessss of pontic materials and dental plaque. J Prosthet Dent 1970;23:407-11.  Back to cited text no. 49
[PUBMED]    
50.Camacho GB, Vinha D, Panzeri H, Nonaka T, Gonçalves M. Surface roughness of a dental ceramic after polishing with different vehicles and diamond pastes. Braz Dent J 2006;17:191-4.  Back to cited text no. 50
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Effect of two polishing systems on color and surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain following orthodontic bracket debonding and composite resin removal
Nazila Ameli,Reihane Talaei,Saeedeh Saeedi,Raheb Ghorbani,Bahareh Ali Askari
APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2019; 9: 105
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (1,156 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2174    
    Printed74    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded224    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal