The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of efficiency of manual polishing over autoglazed and overglazed porcelain and its effect on plaque accumulation

  • Haralur, Satheesh B. (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University)
  • Received : 2012.03.02
  • Accepted : 2012.09.24
  • Published : 2012.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of manual polishing over autoglazed and overglazed porcelain and their effect on plaque accumulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-six porcelain discs were fabricated out of which 18 each was subjected for autoglazing and overglazing. Half surface of the discs was left intact; the remaining half was roughened with medium grit diamond bur. Roughened surfaces were repolished by porcelain polishing kits (Shofu, DFS, Eve). All the surfaces were evaluated by the perthometer and SEM. Six discs from each sample were placed in human volunteer's mouth for 72 hours to evaluate the plaque accumulation. Acquired data was subjected to ANOVA comparative evaluation. RESULTS. Roughened surfaces had average roughness value of $2.88{\pm}0.1935{\mu}m$. The repolished surfaces by porcelain correction kits Shofu, DFS and Eve, average roughness value reduced to $0.6250{\pm}0.1036$, $0.9192{\pm}0.0953$, $0.9017{\pm}0.1305$ respectively. Autoglazed and overglazed surfaces showed the mean roughness value (Ra) of $0.4217{\pm}0.0685$, $0.3450{\pm}0.0729$. SEM study showed the improved surfaces when subjected for polishing. Plaque accumulation percentage was the highest on roughened surface ($93.83{\pm}6.2552%$), followed by porcelain discs polished by commercial kits. Autoglazed surfaces found to be the best surfaces with the least plaque accumulation ($0.5237{\pm}0.4209%$). CONCLUSION. All the polishing kits used in the study reduced the average roughness by approximately 77%. Corrected porcelain surfaces should ideally be reglazed, alternatively, polish the surfaces before final cementation.

Keywords

References

  1. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF and Fujimoto J .Contemporary Fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis; CV Mosby; 2006. p. 631.
  2. Gildenhuys RR, Stallard RE. Comparison of plaque accumulation on metal restorative surfaces. Dent Surv 1975;51:56-9.
  3. Clayton JA, Green E. Roughness of pontic materials and dental plaque. J Prosthet Dent 1970;23:407-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(70)90007-7
  4. Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining properties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:264-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90329-6
  5. Kaqueler J, Weiss M. Plaque accumulation on dental restorative materials. J Dent Res 1970;49:202.
  6. Keenan MP, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr, Wade CK. Effects of cast gold surface finishing on plaque retention. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:168-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90182-1
  7. Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Comparison of bacterial accumulation on rough and smooth enamel surfaces. J Periodontol 1957;28:304-7.
  8. Wise MD, Dykema RW. The plaque-retaining capacity of four dental materials. J Prosthet Dent 1975;33:178-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(75)80108-9
  9. Henry PJ, Johnston JF, Mitchell DF. Tissue changes beneath fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:937-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90016-3
  10. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Darius PL, van Steenberghe D. The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:138-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01077.x
  11. Quirynen M, Van der Mei HC, Bollen CM, Van den Bossche LH, Doornbusch GI, van Steenberghe D, Busscher HJ. The influence of surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque microbiology. An in vivo study on implants. J Periodontol 1994;65:162-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1994.65.2.162
  12. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.
  13. Podshadley AG, harrison JD. rat connective tissue response to pontic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:110-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90118-1
  14. Giordano RA 2nd, Campbell S, Pober R. Flexural strength of feldspathic porcelain treated with ion exchange, overglaze, and polishing. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:468-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90184-8
  15. Williamson RT, Kovarik RE, Mitchell RJ. Effects of grinding, polishing, and overglazing on the flexure strength of a high-leucite feldspathic porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:30-7.
  16. al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Smith GM, Gilmour WH. The abrasive effect of glazed, unglazed, and polished porcelain on the wear of human enamel, and the influence of carbonated soft drinks on the rate of wear. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:269-82.
  17. Monasky GE, Taylor DF. Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25:299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(71)90191-0
  18. Fairhurst CW, Lockwood PE, Ringle RD, Thompson WO. The effect of glaze on porcelain strength. Dent Mater 1992;8:203-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90084-P
  19. Wiley MG. Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:133-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90360-0
  20. Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:320-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90347-6
  21. Sulik WD, Plekavich EJ. Surface finishing of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:217-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90312-7
  22. Klausner LH, Cartwright CB, Charbeneau GT. Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:157-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90180-9
  23. Scurria MS, Powers JM. Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:174-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90027-2
  24. Ward MT, Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of opalescent porcelains after polishing. Oper Dent 1995;20:106-10.
  25. Patterson CJ, McLundie AC, Stirrups DR, Taylor WG. Efficacy of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring surface finish after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:402-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90400-5
  26. el-Karaksi AO, Shehab GI, Eskander ME. Effect of reglazing and of polishing on the surface roughness of new ceramic restorations (Hi-ceram). Egypt Dent J 1993;39:485-90.
  27. Chu FC, Frankel N, Smales RJ. Surface roughness and flexural strength of self-glazed, polished, and reglazed In-Ceram/Vitadur Alpha porcelain laminates. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:66-71.

Cited by

  1. Effect of Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness of Four Ceramic Materials after Occlusal Adjustment vol.28, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12222
  2. Surface Characteristics and Biofilm Development on Selected Dental Ceramic Materials vol.2017, pp.1687-8736, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7627945
  3. Does Finishing and Polishing of Restorative Materials Affect Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation? A Systematic Review vol.43, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2341/17-073-L
  4. Effect of photopolymerized glaze application on bacterial adhesion on ocular acrylic resin surfaces submitted to accelerated ageing pp.02668254, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.13094
  5. Influence of Dental Prosthesis and Restorative Materials Interface on Oral Biofilms vol.19, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19103157
  6. Color Stability of CAD/CAM Ceramics Prepared with Different Surface Finishing Procedures pp.1059941X, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13019
  7. Effect of finishing condition on fracture strength of monolithic zirconia crowns vol.38, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-391
  8. Effect of Thermocycling, Surface Treatments and Microstructure on the Optical Properties and Roughness of CAD-CAM and Heat-Pressed Glass Ceramics vol.13, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020381
  9. An in vitro study to compare the surface roughness of glazed and chairside polished dental monolithic zirconia using two polishing systems vol.20, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_339_19
  10. Effect of Finishing and Polishing on The Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill Composites vol.15, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602115010025
  11. Review on Polymer, Ceramic and Composite Materials for CAD/CAM Indirect Restorations in Dentistry—Application, Mechanical Characteristics and Comparison vol.14, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14071592
  12. Oral prosthetic microbiology: aspects related to the oral microbiome, surface properties, and strategies for controlling biofilms vol.37, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2021.1912741
  13. Surface Modification to Modulate Microbial Biofilms-Applications in Dental Medicine vol.14, pp.22, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14226994