Assistant Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Neuromotor, Division of Prosthodontics, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Neuromotor, Division of Prosthodontics, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Dec;124(6):787.e1-787.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.040. Epub 2020 Oct 9.
The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on composite resin materials has been extensively investigated, but little is known about their effect on ceramic materials.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on the 2D and 3D roughness, translucency, and gloss of different ceramic materials.
A total of 120 flat specimens (thickness: 2 mm) obtained from computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) blocks of leucite glass-ceramic (Empress CAD), lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD), and zirconia (Zenostar MT) were glazed and sintered. Forty specimens from each material were then divided into 4 groups and polished with Cleanic fine, Nupro fine, or Proxyt fine pastes, leaving the control group untreated. The specimens were polished for 2 minutes with a prophylaxis cup mounted on a handpiece, applying a constant load of 3.9 N at 2000 rpm. Surface roughness was measured by using a contact profilometer and a 3D optical profilometer. The translucency parameter and gloss value were calculated by using a spectrophotometer and a glossmeter. One specimen per group was observed by scanning electron microscopy at ×200 magnification. Differences in means were compared by using 2-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test (α=.05).
The 2D roughness of Empress was lower than that of e.max (P<.05) and was increased by using Cleanic fine and Nupro fine pastes (P<.05). The translucency parameter values of Empress and Zenostar decreased with the use of Nupro fine paste (P<.05). Zenostar showed the lowest translucency (P<.05). The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on gloss was minimal (P>.05). The gloss of Empress was higher than that of Zenostar and e.max (P<.05). The Pearson correlation showed that gloss and surface roughness were correlated (P<.001).
Polishing procedures can alter the surface of a ceramic restoration.
预防性抛光膏对复合树脂材料的影响已得到广泛研究，但对其对陶瓷材料的影响知之甚少。
本体外研究的目的是评估预防性抛光膏对不同陶瓷材料的 2D 和 3D 粗糙度、半透明度和光泽度的影响。
从计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造 (CAD-CAM) 块中获得共 120 个平板标本（厚度：2 毫米），分别为透锂长石玻璃陶瓷（Empress CAD）、锂硅玻璃陶瓷（e.max CAD）和氧化锆（Zenostar MT）。然后将每种材料的 40 个标本分为 4 组，分别用 Cleanic 细、Nupro 细或 Proxyt 细抛光膏抛光，对照组不处理。将标本用装在手柄上的抛光杯抛光 2 分钟，施加 3.9N 的恒定负载，转速为 2000rpm。用接触式轮廓仪和 3D 光学轮廓仪测量表面粗糙度。用分光光度计和光泽计计算半透明度参数和光泽值。每组取一个标本，在×200 放大倍数下用扫描电子显微镜观察。用双因素方差分析 (2-way ANOVA) 比较平均值之间的差异，然后用 Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) 检验 (α=.05)。
Empress 的 2D 粗糙度低于 e.max（P<.05），使用 Cleanic 细和 Nupro 细抛光膏后增加（P<.05）。 Empress 和 Zenostar 的半透明度参数值随 Nupro 细抛光膏的使用而降低（P<.05）。Zenostar 的半透明度最低（P<.05）。预防性抛光膏对光泽度的影响很小（P>.05）。 Empress 的光泽度高于 Zenostar 和 e.max（P<.05）。Pearson 相关性显示光泽度和表面粗糙度呈正相关（P<.001）。
抛光程序会改变陶瓷修复体的表面。
