Jurado Carlos A, Amarillas-Gastelum Clarisa, Afrashtehfar Kelvin I, Argueta-Figueroa Liliana, Fischer Nicholas G, Alshabib Abdulrahman
Woody L. Hunt School of Dental Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX 79905, USA.
Department of General Dentistry, Stony Brook University School of Dentistry, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Aug 5;15(15):5402. doi: 10.3390/ma15155402.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two ceramic and two composite polishing systems for a novel chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic with three-dimensional and two-dimensional microscopy images. This ceramic material can be used for implant-supported or tooth-borne single-unit prostheses. Sixty flat samples of novel chairside CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) were divided into five groups (n = 15/group) and treated as follows: Group 1 (NoP), no polished treatment; group 2 (CeDi), polished with ceramic Dialite LD (Brasseler USA); group 3, (CeOp) polished with ceramic OptraFine (Ivoclar Vivadent); group 4, (CoDi) polished with composite DiaComp (Brasseler USA), and group 5 (CoAs), polished with composite Astropol (Ivoclar Vivadent). The polished ceramic surface topography was observed and measured with three-dimensional and two-dimensional images. All polishing systems significantly reduced the surface roughness compared with the non-polished control group (Sa 1.15 μm). Group 2 (CeDi) provided the smoothest surface arithmetical mean eight with 0.32 μm, followed by group 3 (CeOp) with 0.34 μm. Group 5 (CoAs) with 0.52 μm provided the smoothest surface among the composite polishing kits. Group 4 (CoDi) with 0.66 μm provided the least smooth surface among all polishing systems tested. Despite the effectiveness of ceramic polishing systems being superior to composite polishing systems of the CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorative material, both polishing systems significantly improved the smoothness.
本研究旨在通过三维和二维显微镜图像，评估两种陶瓷抛光系统和两种复合抛光系统对一种新型椅旁计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）二硅酸锂陶瓷的有效性。这种陶瓷材料可用于种植体支持或牙支持的单单位修复体。将60个新型椅旁CAD/CAM增强型二硅酸锂陶瓷（Amber Mill，Hass Bio）的扁平样本分为五组（每组n = 15），并进行如下处理：第1组（NoP），未进行抛光处理；第2组（CeDi），用陶瓷Dialite LD（美国Brasseler公司）抛光；第3组（CeOp），用陶瓷OptraFine（义获嘉伟瓦登特公司）抛光；第4组（CoDi），用复合DiaComp（美国Brasseler公司）抛光；第5组（CoAs），用复合Astropol（义获嘉伟瓦登特公司）抛光。通过三维和二维图像观察和测量抛光后的陶瓷表面形貌。与未抛光的对照组（Sa 1.15μm）相比，所有抛光系统均显著降低了表面粗糙度。第2组（CeDi）的表面算术平均粗糙度最低，为0.32μm，其次是第3组（CeOp），为0.34μm。在复合抛光套装中，第5组（CoAs）的表面算术平均粗糙度为0.52μm，是最光滑的。在所有测试的抛光系统中，第4组（CoDi）的表面算术平均粗糙度为0.66μm，是最不光滑的。尽管陶瓷抛光系统对CAD/CAM二硅酸锂修复材料的有效性优于复合抛光系统，但两种抛光系统均显著提高了光滑度。
