Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study

Carlos A. Jurado; Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum; Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar; Liliana Argueta-Figueroa; Nicholas G. Fischer; Abdulrahman Alshabib

doi:10.3390/ma15155402

Back

Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study

Carlos A. Jurado, Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum, Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Liliana Argueta-Figueroa, Nicholas G. Fischer and Abdulrahman Alshabib

Materials, Vol.15(15), p.5402

08/05/2022

DOI: 10.3390/ma15155402

PMCID: PMC9369544

PMID: 35955341

Files and links (1)

url

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15155402View

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two ceramic and two composite polishing systems for a novel chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic with three-dimensional and two-dimensional microscopy images. This ceramic material can be used for implant-supported or tooth-borne single-unit prostheses. Materials and Methods: Sixty flat samples of novel chairside CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) were divided into five groups (n = 15/group) and treated as follows: Group 1 (NoP), no polished treatment; group 2 (CeDi), polished with ceramic Dialite LD (Brasseler USA); group 3, (CeOp) polished with ceramic OptraFine (Ivoclar Vivadent); group 4, (CoDi) polished with composite DiaComp (Brasseler USA), and group 5 (CoAs), polished with composite Astropol (Ivoclar Vivadent). The polished ceramic surface topography was observed and measured with three-dimensional and two-dimensional images. Results: All polishing systems significantly reduced the surface roughness compared with the non-polished control group (Sa 1.15 μm). Group 2 (CeDi) provided the smoothest surface arithmetical mean eight with 0.32 μm, followed by group 3 (CeOp) with 0.34 μm. Group 5 (CoAs) with 0.52 μm provided the smoothest surface among the composite polishing kits. Group 4 (CoDi) with 0.66 μm provided the least smooth surface among all polishing systems tested. Conclusions: Despite the effectiveness of ceramic polishing systems being superior to composite polishing systems of the CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorative material, both polishing systems significantly improved the smoothness.

CAD-CAM

dental polishing

dental prosthesis

disilicate lithium

esthetic dentistry

Details

Title: Subtitle: Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study
Creators: Carlos A. Jurado - Stony Brook University
Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum - Stony Brook University
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar - Stony Brook University
Liliana Argueta-Figueroa - Stony Brook University
Nicholas G. Fischer - Stony Brook University
Abdulrahman Alshabib - Stony Brook University
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Materials, Vol.15(15), p.5402
Publisher: MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15155402
PMID: 35955341
PMCID: PMC9369544
ISSN: 1996-1944
eISSN: 1996-1944
Language: English
Date published: 08/05/2022
Academic Unit: Prosthodontics
Record Identifier: 9984367628602771

Metrics

12 Record Views

7 Times Cited - Web of Science