Butler Craig J, Masri Radi, Driscoll Carl F, Thompson Geoffrey A, Runyan Dennis A, Anthony von Fraunhofer Joseph
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, 21201 USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Aug;92(2):179-83. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.025.
The effect of repeated applications of fluoride solutions and 10% carbamide peroxide on the surface roughness of newer dental porcelains is not completely known.
The purpose of this study was to compare the surface roughness of 3 different porcelains when exposed to 2 fluoride solutions, a 10% solution of carbamide peroxide, and distilled water.
Forty discs (10-mm diameter, 2 mm thick) were made of each of the following porcelains: feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco II), low-fusing porcelain (Finesse), and an aluminous porcelain (All-Ceram). Each disc was abraded with a medium-grit diamond bur and auto-glazed. One side of each disc was abraded with a diamond bur and polished using a porcelain polishing kit to simulate a chairside adjustment and polishing. The discs (10 specimens/group) were immersed in 1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, 10% carbamide peroxide, and distilled water for 50 seconds (control). The discs in the 10% carbamide peroxide solution were immersed for 48 hours. The surface of each disc was evaluated with surface profilometry (0.1 mm/s speed, 600-microm range). The data were analyzed by factorial analysis of variance and a Tukey multiple comparison test, (alpha=.05).
The data showed that the acidulated phosphate fluoride etched the auto-glazed surface of all 3 porcelains. For Finesse specimens, the mean Ra values for the auto-glazed surface were significantly higher than that of the control after immersion in 1.23% APF (mean Ra 0.3 +/- 0.06 microm, P<.031). All-Ceram auto-glazed surface specimens had a significantly higher mean Ra value when immersed in the 3 solutions than the control (1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, and 10% carbamide peroxide, 0.245 +/- 0.115 microm, 0.22 +/- 0.104 microm, 0.22 +/- 0.04 microm, respectively; P<.002). Ceramco II specimens were affected by all 3 solutions, with the auto-glazed surface having higher Ra values (1.23% APF, 0.4% stannous fluoride, and 10% carbamide peroxide, with mean Ra values of 0.35 +/- 0.1 microm, 0.26 +/- 0.08 microm, and 0.24 +/-.0.05 microm, respectively, P=.001). Immersion in the 3 solutions had no effect on the polished surfaces of all-ceramic specimens tested.
Prior to the use of fluoride and 10% carbamide peroxide, dentists should ascertain the type of porcelain restoration present to prevent a roughened surface from occurring.
重复应用氟化物溶液和10%过氧化脲对新型牙科瓷材料表面粗糙度的影响尚不完全清楚。
本研究的目的是比较3种不同瓷材料在接触2种氟化物溶液、10%过氧化脲溶液和蒸馏水后的表面粗糙度。
用以下每种瓷材料制作40个圆盘（直径10毫米，厚2毫米）：长石质瓷（Ceramco II）、低熔瓷（Finesse）和高铝瓷（全瓷）。每个圆盘用中粒度金刚石车针研磨并自动上釉。每个圆盘的一侧用金刚石车针研磨，并用瓷抛光套件抛光，以模拟临床椅旁调整和抛光。将圆盘（每组10个样本）浸入1.23%酸性磷酸氟、0.4%氟化亚锡、10%过氧化脲和蒸馏水中50秒（对照组）。将圆盘浸入10%过氧化脲溶液中48小时。用表面轮廓仪（速度0.1毫米/秒，范围600微米）评估每个圆盘的表面。数据采用析因方差分析和Tukey多重比较检验进行分析（α = 0.05）。
数据显示，酸性磷酸氟蚀刻了所有3种瓷材料的自动上釉表面。对于Finesse样本，浸入1.23%酸性磷酸氟后，自动上釉表面的平均Ra值显著高于对照组（平均Ra 0.3±0.06微米，P < 0.031）。浸入3种溶液后，全瓷自动上釉表面样本的平均Ra值显著高于对照组（1.23%酸性磷酸氟、0.4%氟化亚锡和10%过氧化脲，分别为0.245±0.115微米、0.22±0.104微米、0.22±0.04微米；P < 0.002）。Ceramco II样本受到所有3种溶液的影响，自动上釉表面的Ra值较高（1.23%酸性磷酸氟、0.4%氟化亚锡和10%过氧化脲，平均Ra值分别为0.35±0.1微米、0.26±0.08微米和0.24±0.05微米，P = 0.001）。浸入3种溶液对测试全瓷样本的抛光表面没有影响。
在使用氟化物和10%过氧化脲之前，牙医应确定存在的瓷修复体类型，以防止表面粗糙。
Zotero 插件