Private Practice, ESIC Medical College and Hospital, Joka, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021 Apr-Jun;21(2):173-179. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_425_20.
To find and compare the qualitative and quantitative change in color and surface texture of feldspathic ceramic, pressable ceramic and ceramic used in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing CAD/CAM after different surface treatments namely glazing, abrading and polishing. To compare the effectiveness of pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex polishing system used in the study.
In-vitro, comparative study.
Disc-shaped feldsapathic, pressable, CAD/CAM ceramic specimens were fabricated. Surface roughness and color parameters Δ L*, Δa*, and Δ b* were measured before glazing, after glazing, after abrasion with 02 diamond bur and after polishing with two different polishing systems. Surface roughness was measured qualitatively using scanning electron microscopy and quantitatively using an optical profilometer. The value of color parameters was obtained using a colorimeter. Data were statistically analyzed with ANOVA.
SPSS software 20.0 version (IBM, New York, United states of America).
Unglazed feldspathic, pressable and CAD/CAM porcelain specimens showed a mean surface roughness value of 2.73 ± 0.38, 3.54 ± 1.42, and 3 ± 1.74 specimens. After glazing and polishing, the surface roughness values decreased. After abrasion, surface roughness values increased. Polishing did not alter the color along the red green axis and yellow blue axis.
Abraded specimens of feldspathic, pressable and CAD/CAM after polishing using pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex disc became smoother than glazed specimens. When pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex discs were compared for their effectiveness the former appeared to be more superior but not to a significant level. Mechanically altering feldspathic, pressable, and porcelain used in CAD/CAM technology does not cause any change in shade.
寻找和比较长石陶瓷、可压陶瓷和计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)陶瓷在不同表面处理(上釉、研磨和抛光)后的颜色和表面质地的定性和定量变化。比较研究中使用的珍珠抛光膏和 Soflex 抛光系统的效果。
体外,比较研究。
制作圆盘状长石、可压、CAD/CAM 陶瓷样本。在上釉前、上釉后、用 02 金刚石钻头研磨后和用两种不同的抛光系统抛光后,测量表面粗糙度和颜色参数ΔL*、Δa和Δb。使用扫描电子显微镜定性测量表面粗糙度,使用光学轮廓仪定量测量表面粗糙度。使用色度计获得颜色参数的值。使用 SPSS 软件 20.0 版(IBM,美国纽约)进行统计分析。
未上釉的长石、可压和 CAD/CAM 瓷标本的平均表面粗糙度值分别为 2.73±0.38、3.54±1.42 和 3±1.74。上釉和抛光后,表面粗糙度值降低。研磨后,表面粗糙度值增加。抛光不会改变沿红-绿轴和黄-蓝轴的颜色。
使用珍珠抛光膏和 Soflex 盘对长石、可压和 CAD/CAM 的研磨后进行抛光,可使标本变得比上釉标本更光滑。当比较珍珠抛光膏和 Soflex 盘的效果时,前者似乎更优越,但没有达到显著水平。机械改变长石、可压和 CAD/CAM 技术中使用的陶瓷不会导致色调发生任何变化。