Finger W J, Noack M D
Department of Preclinical Dentistry, Dental School, University of Cologne, Germany.
Am J Dent. 2000 Feb;13(1):8-12.
(1) to investigate by SEM and profilometry the effectiveness of Luminescence diamond polishing gel on machinable ceramic after adjustment grinding with different grit diamond finishing burs, and (2) to define a simple, time-saving ceramic finishing and polishing technique for clinically satisfactory results.
Discs, 3 mm thick, were cut from Vita Mark II CAD-CAM ceramic and ground to a uniform surface finish on 600 grit wet SiC paper. Five specimens in each of the seven groups below were finished unidirectionally by a sweeping mode with the following Two Striper MFS diamond burs: 1. MF1 (45 microm); 2. MF2 (25 microm); 3. MF3 (10 microm); 4. MF1 + MF2; 5. MF1 + MF3; 6. MF2 + MF3; 7. MF1 + MF2 + MF3. Then, Luminescence diamond polishing gel was dispensed on a mandrel-mounted felt applicator and applied at 10,000 rpm for 60 s, and after dipping in water for another 60-s sequence. Surface roughness was determined for each step with a stylus-fitted surface analyzer. On each specimen five parallel tracings (evaluation length 4.0 mm and cut-off length 0.8 mm) were made 1 mm apart. Ra and Rz values were recorded as roughness parameters. Data was subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison test at a significance level of alpha = 0.05. One additional sample for each grinding and polishing step in each of the seven groups was produced for SEM analysis.
Diamond polishing after MF1 finishing reduced Ra and Rz significantly from 1.75 to 0.79, and from 10.0 to 4.09 microm, respectively, whereas the Ra and Rz reduction after MF3 finishing and diamond polishing were from 0.64 to 0.49 and from 4.31 to 1.81 microm. The polished surface roughness of specimens prefinished with MF2 or MF3 burs alone or as the final step after preceding grinding with coarser grits was not significantly different. The average Ra and Rz values were 0.42 microm and 1.73 microm. SEM photographs confirmed the uniformity of the surface finish in these groups. The second polishing sequence did not significantly improve the smoothness obtained with the first cycle.
（1）通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）和轮廓仪研究发光金刚石抛光凝胶在用不同粒度金刚石精修车针进行调磨后对可加工陶瓷的抛光效果，（2）确定一种简单、省时的陶瓷精修和抛光技术，以获得临床满意的结果。
从Vita Mark II CAD-CAM陶瓷上切割出3毫米厚的圆盘，在600目湿碳化硅纸上研磨至表面光洁度均匀。以下七组中每组五个试样，使用以下Two Striper MFS金刚石车针以扫掠模式单向精修：1. MF1（45微米）；2. MF2（25微米）；3. MF3（10微米）；4. MF1 + MF2；5. MF1 + MF3；6. MF2 + MF3；7. MF1 + MF2 + MF3。然后，将发光金刚石抛光凝胶涂覆在安装在心轴上的毡制涂抹器上，以10000转/分钟的速度施加60秒，然后再浸入水中60秒。使用触针式表面分析仪在每个步骤测定表面粗糙度。在每个试样上，相隔1毫米进行五条平行轨迹测量（评估长度4.0毫米，截止长度0.8毫米）。记录Ra和Rz值作为粗糙度参数。数据进行单因素方差分析和Tukey多重比较检验，显著性水平α = 0.05。每组七个组中每个研磨和抛光步骤额外制备一个样品用于SEM分析。
MF1精修后的金刚石抛光使Ra和Rz分别从1.75显著降低至0.79，从10.0降低至4.09微米，而MF3精修和金刚石抛光后的Ra和Rz降低分别为从0.64至0.49以及从4.31至1.81微米。单独用MF2或MF3车针预精修的试样，或在先用较粗粒度研磨后的最后步骤进行抛光后的表面粗糙度无显著差异。平均Ra和Rz值分别为0.42微米和1.73微米。SEM照片证实了这些组表面光洁度的均匀性。第二次抛光过程并未显著改善第一次循环获得的光滑度。
