Baldi Domenico, Colombo Jacopo, Gavoglio Paola, De Giorgis Luisa, Motta Franco, Lugas Andrea, Lertora Enrico, Schierano Gianmario
Division of Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, Via Piacenza 86, 16138 Genova, Italy.
Private Practice, 19100 La Spezia, Italy.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Feb 2;15(3):1159. doi: 10.3390/ma15031159.
The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instruments through SEM and roughness analysis: manual steel curette, manual titanium curette, ultrasonic steel insert, and ultrasonic peek insert. Forty crowns were made, ten of each type of material. For each material, five crowns were manually instrumented with steel inserts (curette 11-12, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) and titanium (Wingrove 3-4, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) on the lingual and buccal surfaces, respectively, and the other five crowns were instrumented with an ultrasonic peek insert (ICS-IC1, Mectron, Carasco, Italy) on the buccal surface and steel (PS, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) on the lingual surface. At this point, surface roughness analysis was carried out. The data were analyzed with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, it was decided to conduct two analyses with a Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni post hoc test. Then, the instrumented crowns were analyzed by SEM. The analysis of the data shows that the highest average roughness was within the composite group, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. Significant differences existed between the groups, between the materials, and between the different instruments (-value < 0.05). In the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, the classic steel insert eliminated the residues of golden finishing. The peek insert created alterations on all tested surfaces. The steel curette did not create particular problems, with the exception of zirconium, where it was possible to observe some scratch lines. Instrumentation with the titanium curette created deeper incisions than the steel curette in the composite and disilicate. The best results came from the ultrasonic steel insert, while the best material appeared to be disilicate.
新型修复材料的使用使得制定适当的卫生协议成为必要。决定用四种不同材料制作修复冠：复合树脂、二硅酸锂、金属陶瓷和锆，并通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）和粗糙度分析评估四种不同器械对其表面的影响，这四种器械分别是：手动钢制刮治器、手动钛制刮治器、超声钢制插入器和超声聚醚醚酮（PEEK）插入器。制作了40个冠，每种材料10个。对于每种材料，5个冠分别在舌面和颊面用钢制插入器（美国蒙大拿州米苏拉市PDT公司的11 - 12号刮治器）和钛制插入器（美国蒙大拿州米苏拉市PDT公司的Wingrove 3 - 4号）进行手工处理，另外5个冠在颊面用超声PEEK插入器（意大利卡拉斯科市Mectron公司的ICS - IC1），在舌面用钢制插入器（瑞士尼翁市EMS公司的PS）进行处理。此时，进行表面粗糙度分析。数据用柯尔莫哥洛夫 - 斯米尔诺夫检验进行分析。因此，决定用克鲁斯卡尔 - 沃利斯检验和邦费罗尼事后检验进行两项分析。然后，通过SEM对处理后的冠进行分析。数据分析表明，复合树脂组的平均粗糙度最高，而表现最佳的材料似乎是二硅酸锂。各组之间、材料之间以及不同器械之间存在显著差异（P值<0.05）。在SEM进行的定性分析中，传统的钢制插入器能去除金色抛光的残留物。PEEK插入器在所有测试表面都造成了改变。钢制刮治器没有产生特别的问题，但锆材料除外，在锆材料上可以观察到一些划痕。在复合树脂和二硅酸锂材料中，用钛制刮治器处理比用钢制刮治器造成的切口更深。最佳结果来自超声钢制插入器，而表现最佳的材料似乎是二硅酸锂。
