Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Classic Article| Volume 92, ISSUE 5, P486-490, November 2004

Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain

      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.


      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.


      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.


      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 access
      One-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 to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • McLean J.W.
        The science and art of dental ceramics. Vol 2. Quintessence Publishing Co, Chicago1979 (45-79)
        • Al-Wahadni A.
        • Martin D.M.
        Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review.
        J Can Dent Assoc. 1998; 64: 580-583
        • Kawai K.
        • Urano M.
        • Ebisu S.
        Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 664-667
        • Clayton J.A.
        • Green E.
        Roughness of pontic materials and dental plaque.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1970; 23: 407-411
        • Swartz M.L.
        • Phillips R.W.
        Comparison of bacterial accumulations on rough and smooth enamel surfaces.
        J Periodontol. 1957; 28: 304-307
        • Monasky G.E.
        • Taylor D.F.
        Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 25: 299-306
        • Schlissel E.R.
        • Newitter D.A.
        • Renner R.R.
        • Gwinnett A.J.
        An evaluation of postadjustment polishing techniques for porcelain denture teeth.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43: 258-265
        • Jagger D.C.
        • Harrison A.
        An in-vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72: 320-323
        • Bessing C.
        • Wiktorsson A.
        Comparison of two different methods of polishing porcelain.
        Scand J Dent Res. 1983; 91: 482-487
        • Barghi N.
        • Alexander L.
        • Draugh R.A.
        When to glaze—an electron microscope study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1976; 35: 648-653
        • Newitter D.A.
        • Schlissel E.R.
        • Wolff M.S.
        An evaluation of adjustment and postadjustment finishing techniques on the surface of porcelain-bonded-to-metal crowns.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48: 388-395
        • Wiley M.G.
        Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 61: 133-137
        • Smith G.A.
        • Wilson N.H.
        The surface finish of trimmed porcelain.
        Br Dent J. 1981; 151: 222-224
        • Patterson C.J.
        • McLundie A.C.
        • Stirrups D.R.
        • Taylor W.G.
        Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65: 383-388
        • Jagger D.C.
        • Harrison A.
        An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on dentine.
        J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22: 349-354
        • Jagger D.C.
        • Harrison A.
        An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on enamel.
        J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22: 275-281
        • Hudson J.D.
        • Goldstein G.R.
        • Georgescu M.
        Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74: 647-654
        • Hacker C.H.
        • Wagner W.C.
        • Razzoog M.E.
        An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold in saliva.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 14-17
        • Sulik W.D.
        • Plekavich E.J.
        Surface finishing of dental porcelain.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46: 217-221
        • Haywood V.B.
        • Heymann H.O.
        • Kusy R.P.
        • Whitley J.Q.
        • Andreaus S.B.
        Polishing porcelain veneers: an SEM and specular reflectance analysis.
        Dent Mater. 1988; 4: 116-121
        • Klausner L.H.
        • Cartwright C.B.
        • Charbeneau G.T.
        Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47: 157-162
        • Goldstein R.E.
        Finishing of composites and laminates.
        Dent Clin North Am. 1989; 33: 305-318
        • Raimondo Jr., R.L.
        • Richardson J.T.
        • Wiedner B.
        Polished versus autoglazed dental porcelain.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 553-557
        • Derand P.
        • Vereby P.
        Wear of low-fusing dental porcelains.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 460-463
        • Alkhiary Y.M.
        • Morgano S.M.
        • Giordano R.A.
        Effects of acid hydrolysis and mechanical polishing on surface residual stresses of low-fusing dental ceramics.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 133-142
        • Rosenstiel S.F.
        • Baiker M.A.
        • Johnston W.M.
        A comparison of glazed and polished dental porcelain.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1989; 2: 524-529