Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yldrm Beyazt University, Etlik Campus, Ankara, Turkey,
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yldrm Beyazt University, Etlik Campus, Ankara, Turkey.
Am J Dent. 2024 Jun;37(3):141-146.
To evaluate the effect of air abrasion and polishing procedures on roughness and color stability of ceramic and composite materials after artificial accelerated aging.
In this study, six restorative materials were tested: feldspathic ceramic (CEREC Blocks), glass ceramic (IPS e.max CAD), resin-based hybrid ceramic (Cerasmart), microhybrid composite (Charisma Classic), nanohybrid composite (Charisma Diamond) and nanoceramic composite (CeramXOne). Forty square-shaped composite specimens were fabricated from each composite and CAD-CAM ceramic material. Initial surface roughness measurements were performed using a profilometer and color measurements of each specimen with a spectrophotometer. Ten control specimens for each group did not receive air abrasion. The other specimens were treated by an air abrasion device and then were randomly divided into three subgroups of 10 specimens (n= 10). After air abrasion, 10 specimens of each group did not receive polishing (Air abrasion group) and others were repolished with Sof-Lex kit (Sof-Lex group) or a rubber kit (Rubber group). Surface roughness and color measurements were repeated before and after 300 hours of artificial accelerated aging (AAA). The univariate test and then three-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA were performed for comparison of groups (α= 0.05).
The univariate statistical analysis revealed that the restorative materials were differently affected after air abrasion, polishing methods and AAA (P< 0.001). Three-way ANOVA showed that the surface roughness of the restorative materials increased after air abrasion and AAA (P< 0.001). Two-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between color changes of ceramic (CEREC and IPS e.max CAD) and composite based restorative materials (P< 0.001).
Clinicians should be aware that air abrasion at a specified power and time significantly changes the surface roughness of the materials except for CEREC. Additionally, polishing procedures (Sof-Lex, Rubber) did not significantly reduce the surface roughness of the ceramic groups. After air abrasion, depending on the material type used clinically, restorations should be repolished to reduce roughness and ensure color stability.
评估空气喷砂和抛光程序对人工加速老化后陶瓷和复合材料的粗糙度和颜色稳定性的影响。
在这项研究中,测试了六种修复材料:长石陶瓷(CEREC Blocks)、玻璃陶瓷(IPS e.max CAD)、树脂基混合陶瓷(Cerasmart)、微混合复合材料(Charisma Classic)、纳米混合复合材料(Charisma Diamond)和纳米陶瓷复合材料(CeramXOne)。从每种复合材料和 CAD-CAM 陶瓷材料中制作了 40 个方形复合试件。使用轮廓仪对初始表面粗糙度进行测量,并使用分光光度计对每个试件的颜色进行测量。每组各有 10 个对照试件未进行喷砂处理。其余试件用喷砂设备处理,然后随机分为三组,每组 10 个试件(n=10)。喷砂后,每组的 10 个试件未进行抛光(喷砂组),其余试件用 Sof-Lex 套件(Sof-Lex 组)或橡胶套件(橡胶组)重新抛光。在人工加速老化(AAA)300 小时前后重复进行表面粗糙度和颜色测量。采用单因素检验,然后进行三因素方差分析和双因素方差分析,比较各组间差异(α=0.05)。
单因素统计分析显示,空气喷砂、抛光方法和 AAA 后修复材料的影响不同(P<0.001)。三因素方差分析显示,空气喷砂和 AAA 后修复材料的表面粗糙度增加(P<0.001)。双因素方差分析显示,陶瓷(CEREC 和 IPS e.max CAD)和复合材料修复材料的颜色变化之间存在统计学差异(P<0.001)。
临床医生应注意,在特定功率和时间下进行空气喷砂会显著改变除 CEREC 以外的材料的表面粗糙度。此外,抛光程序(Sof-Lex、橡胶)并不能显著降低陶瓷组的表面粗糙度。空气喷砂后,根据临床使用的材料类型,应重新抛光修复体以降低粗糙度并确保颜色稳定性。