Statement of the problem
With the introduction of newer dental porcelains, there exists the need to evaluate
different porcelain polishing systems available on the market.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the surface roughness produced by 3 different
porcelain polishing systems on an ultra-low fusing porcelain.
Material and methods
Sixty-three ultra-low fusing porcelain (Finesse) discs (10 × 2 mm) were fabricated
and randomly divided into 3 groups (n=21). Both sides of each disc were abraded with
a medium-grit diamond bur. One side was autoglazed and was considered a control. The
other side was polished until the surface appeared shiny to the naked eye using 1
of 3 porcelain polishing kits (Axis Dental, Jelenko, and Brasseler systems). The surface
of each disc was evaluated quantitatively with surface profilometry and qualitatively
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A mean roughness profile (Ra) value was
determined for each side of each specimen to describe the overall roughness of the
surface. The Ra mean difference for each specimen was determined by subtracting the
mean experimental readings (polished surface) from the mean control readings (glazed
surface) and was used for the statistical analysis. The data were analyzed using analysis
of variance followed by a Tukey multiple comparison test (α=.05). Representative specimens
from each group were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy.
Results
The Axis porcelain polishing system produced a smoother surface than the Brasseler
or Jelenko systems (0.586 ± 0.256, 0.306 ± 0.238, and 0.277 ± 0.230, respectively).
No significant difference was found between the Jelenko and Brasseler porcelain polishing
kits (F=10.6, P<.001). The images obtained through SEM were evaluated and found to be consistent
with the profilometer readings.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, all 3 porcelain polishing systems produced a
surface smoother than the autoglazed surface of Finesse. The Axis system provided
a significantly smoother surface compared to the Brasseler and Jelenko polishing systems.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The science and art of dental ceramics. Vol 2. Quintessence Publishing Co, Chicago1979 (45-79)
- Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review.J Can Dent Assoc. 1998; 64: 580-583
- Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans.J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 664-667
- Roughness of pontic materials and dental plaque.J Prosthet Dent. 1970; 23: 407-411
- Comparison of bacterial accumulations on rough and smooth enamel surfaces.J Periodontol. 1957; 28: 304-307
- Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold.J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 25: 299-306
- An evaluation of postadjustment polishing techniques for porcelain denture teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43: 258-265
- An in-vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel.J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72: 320-323
- Comparison of two different methods of polishing porcelain.Scand J Dent Res. 1983; 91: 482-487
- When to glaze—an electron microscope study.J Prosthet Dent. 1976; 35: 648-653
- An evaluation of adjustment and postadjustment finishing techniques on the surface of porcelain-bonded-to-metal crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48: 388-395
- Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 61: 133-137
- The surface finish of trimmed porcelain.Br Dent J. 1981; 151: 222-224
- Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit.J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 383-388
- An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on dentine.J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22: 349-354
- An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on enamel.J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22: 275-281
- Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials.J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74: 647-654
- An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold in saliva.J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 14-17
- Surface finishing of dental porcelain.J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46: 217-221
- Polishing porcelain veneers: an SEM and specular reflectance analysis.Dent Mater. 1988; 4: 116-121
- Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces.J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47: 157-162
- Finishing of composites and laminates.Dent Clin North Am. 1989; 33: 305-318
- Polished versus autoglazed dental porcelain.J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 553-557
- Wear of low-fusing dental porcelains.J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 460-463
- Effects of acid hydrolysis and mechanical polishing on surface residual stresses of low-fusing dental ceramics.J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 133-142
- A comparison of glazed and polished dental porcelain.Int J Prosthodont. 1989; 2: 524-529
Article info
Publication history
Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, Md; United States Army Dental Research Detachment, Great Lakes, Ill
Footnotes
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Dental Research, San Diego, Calif, March 2002, and at the Annual Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics, Chicago, Ill, March, 2003.
This project was partially funded by a Tylman Grant from the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics.
Identification
Copyright
© 2004 The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
