Klausner L H, Cartwright C B, Charbeneau G T
J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Feb;47(2):157-62. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90180-9.
Four different porcelain polishing sequences were evaluated, and the resulting polished surfaces were compared to an unaltered glazed surface. The sequences included: (1) superfine diamond, Dedeco wheels, and levigated alumina; (2) Shofu porcelain polishing system; (3) superfine diamond, Cratex wheel, Burlew disk, and levigated alumina; and (4) Jelenko porcelain carving and polishing wheels. No statistically significant differences were found for the surface roughness values among the initial glazed samples. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the final polished surfaces and the initial autoglazed surfaces for any of the four test sequences. Significant differences were found between comparable abrasives among the polishing sequences, as well as between steps within a single polishing sequence. The clinical significance of these differences in regard to gingival health or occlusal abrasion and wear is yet to be determined.
