Mulay Gauri, Dugal Ramandeep, Buhranpurwala Murtuza
Department of Prosthodontics, M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015 Apr-Jun;15(2):111-8. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.155031.
Surface of porcelain restoration is a matter of clinical concern because of its abrasive action on the opposing enamel.
This study comparatively evaluated wear of enamel when opposed by three different surface finishes of ceramic.
A total of 60 metal-ceramic discs (10 mm × 2 mm) with different surface finishes were fabricated. They were divided into four groups of autoglazed ceramic surface, over glazed ceramic surface, ceramic surface polished with Shofu polishing kit and ceramic surface polished with DFS polishing wheels and paste. Each group comprised of 15 discs. Sixty human teeth samples were prepared from freshly extracted, unrestored, caries free, nonattrited maxillary first premolars. Each tooth sample was weighed before wear testing using AT200 Mettler Toledo electronic analytical balance of 0.0001 g accuracy. Occlusal surfaces of these teeth were then abraded against the substrates in a wear machine for a total of 10,000 cycles. Each tooth sample was weighed after 5000 cycles and after the total of 10,000 cycles, respectively, using the same balance. Differences in weight of tooth samples before and after wear testing were evaluated statistically using one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni's correction for multiple group comparisons.
The values obtained for percentage weight loss after 10,000 cycles for over glazed ceramic surface were marginally higher than values obtained for autoglazed surface. It was observed that values obtained for percentage weight loss by polished ceramic after 10,000 cycles were statistically less as compared to the values obtained with autoglazed and over glazed ceramic surface (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the values obtained by polished ceramic surfaces of two different groups.
Enamel wear produced by polished porcelain is substantially less than autoglazed and over glazed porcelain. No significant difference was found in enamel wear when opposed by ceramic surfaces polished by two different methods. This study indicates the potential damage porcelain can inflict upon enamel and suggests that porcelain should be polished instead of over glazed.
瓷修复体的表面是临床关注的问题，因为其对相对的牙釉质有磨蚀作用。
本研究比较评估了与三种不同陶瓷表面光洁度相对时牙釉质的磨损情况。
制作了总共60个具有不同表面光洁度的金属烤瓷盘（10毫米×2毫米）。它们被分为四组：自上釉陶瓷表面、再上釉陶瓷表面、用松风抛光套装抛光的陶瓷表面以及用DFS抛光盘和抛光膏抛光的陶瓷表面。每组包含15个盘。从新鲜拔除的、未修复的、无龋、无磨损的上颌第一前磨牙制备60个人牙样本。在磨损测试前，使用精度为0.0001克的梅特勒托利多AT200电子分析天平对每个牙样本称重。然后将这些牙齿的咬合面在磨损试验机中与基底相对磨损，总共进行10000次循环。分别在5000次循环后和总共10000次循环后，使用同一台天平对每个牙样本称重。使用单因素方差分析和用于多组比较的邦费罗尼校正对磨损测试前后牙样本重量的差异进行统计学评估。
再上釉陶瓷表面在10000次循环后获得的重量损失百分比值略高于自上釉表面获得的值。观察到，与自上釉和再上釉陶瓷表面获得的值相比，抛光陶瓷在10000次循环后获得的重量损失百分比值在统计学上更低（P < 0.001）。两个不同组的抛光陶瓷表面获得的值之间没有统计学上的显著差异。
抛光瓷产生的牙釉质磨损明显小于自上釉瓷和再上釉瓷。当与通过两种不同方法抛光的陶瓷表面相对时，牙釉质磨损没有发现显著差异。本研究表明瓷对牙釉质可能造成的损害，并建议对瓷进行抛光而非再上釉。
