The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Effects of different finishing/polishing protocols and systems for monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and biofilm formation

  • Mai, Hang-Nga (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, ITRD, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Hong, Su-Hyung (Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, ITRD, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2018.07.10
  • Accepted : 2018.11.18
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various protocols and systems for finishing and polishing monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and bacterial adhesion. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three hundred monolithic zirconia specimens were fabricated and then treated with three finishing and polishing systems (Jota [JO], Meisinger [ME], and Edenta [ED]) using four surface treatment protocols: coarse finishing alone (C); coarse finishing and medium polishing (CM); coarse finishing and fine polishing (CF); and coarse finishing, medium polishing, and fine polishing (CMF). Surface roughness, crystal phase transformation, and bacterial adhesion were evaluated using atomic force microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and streptococcal biofilm formation assay, respectively. One-way and two-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests were used to analyze the results (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. In this study, the surface treatment protocols and systems had significant effects on the resulting roughness. The CMF protocol produced the lowest roughness values, followed by CM and CF. Use of the JO system produced the lowest roughness values and the smallest biofilm mass, while the ME system produced the smallest partial transformation ratio. The ED group exhibited the highest roughness values, biofilm mass, and partial transformation ratio. CONCLUSION. Stepwise surface treatment of monolithic zirconia, combined with careful polishing system selection, is essential to obtaining optimal microstructural and biological surface results.

Keywords

References

  1. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57:236-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001
  2. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: an overview. Dent Mater 2008;24:289-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.005
  3. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of allceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:449-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002
  4. Hmaidouch R, Muller WD, Lauer HC, Weigl P. Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci 2014;6:241-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2014.34
  5. Khayat W, Chebib N, Finkelman M, Khayat S, Ali A. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:626-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.003
  6. Alao AR, Stoll R, Song XF, Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Shibata Y, Yin L. Surface quality of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal in CAD/CAM milling, sintering, polishing and sandblasting processes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;65:102-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.08.021
  7. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH, Ahn JS, Ryu JJ. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent 2012;40:979-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004
  8. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:68-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x
  9. Sagsoz O, Demirci T, Demirci G, Sagsoz NP, Yildiz M. The effects of different polishing techniques on the staining resistance of CAD/CAM resin-ceramics. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:417-22. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.417
  10. Amer R, Kurklu D, Johnston W. Effect of simulated mastication on the surface roughness of three ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:260-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.018
  11. Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:245-52.
  12. Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB, Jamshidian M. Effect of coarse grinding, overglazing, and 2 polishing systems on the flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:658-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.019
  13. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
  14. Preis V, Grumser K, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, Rosentritt M. The effectiveness of polishing kits: influence on surface roughness of zirconia. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:149-51. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4153
  15. Caglar I, Ates SM, Yesil Duymus Z. The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:132-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.132
  16. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:379-97, ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.002
  17. Al-Haj Husain N, Ozcan M. A study on topographical properties and surface wettability of monolithic zirconia after use of diverse polishing instruments with different surface coatings. Prosthodont 2018;27:429-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12515
  18. Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Evaluation of various polishing systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:440-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.021
  19. Kobayashi K, Kuwajima H, Masaki T. Phase change and mechanical properties of ZrO2-Y2O3 solid electrolyte after ageing. Solid State Ion 1980;3-4:489-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2738(81)90138-7
  20. Gibson IR, Irvine JT. Qualitative X-ray diffraction analysis of metastable tetragonal (t') zirconia. J Am Ceram Soc 2001;84:615-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.2001.tb00708.x
  21. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2004;32:91-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.08.006
  22. Luthardt RG, Holzhuter M, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Schnapp JD, Kuhlisch E, Walter M. Reliability and properties of ground Y-TZP-zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2002;81:487-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910208100711
  23. Toraya H, Yoshimura M, Somiya S. Calibration curve for quantitative analysis of the monoclinic-tetragonal ZrO2 system by X-ray diffraction. J Am Ceram Soc 1984;67:C119-21.
  24. Garvie RC, Nicholson PS. Phase analysis in zirconia systems. J Am Ceram Soc 1972;55:303-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1972.tb11290.x
  25. Gilan I, Sivan A. Extracellular DNA plays an important structural role in the biofilm of the plastic degrading actinomycete Rhodo-coccus ruber. Adv Microbiol 2013;3:543-51. https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2013.38073
  26. Silva TM, Salvia AC, Carvalho RF, Pagani C, Rocha DM, Silva EG. Polishing for glass ceramics: which protocol? J Prosthodont Res 2014;58:160-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001
  27. Jing Z, Ke Z, Yihong L, Zhijian S. Effect of multistep processing technique on the formation of micro-defects and residual stresses in zirconia dental restorations. J Prosthodont 2014;23:206-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12094
  28. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent 2012;6:198-205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698951
  29. Lanson B, Velde B. Decomposition of X-ray diffraction patterns: a convenient way to describe complex I/S diagenetic evolution. Clays Clay Miner 1992;40:629-43. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1992.0400602
  30. Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, Lim HP. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:430-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.005
  31. Lee BC, Jung GY, Kim DJ, Han JS. Initial bacterial adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:81-4. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.81
  32. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  33. Kim HK, Kim SH. Comparison of the optical properties of pre-colored dental monolithic zirconia ceramics sintered in a conventional furnace versus a microwave oven. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:394-401. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.394
  34. Choi JW, Kim SY, Bae JH, Bae EB, Huh JB. In vitro study of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:244-51. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.244

Cited by

  1. Surface Roughness and Streptococcus mutans Adhesion on Metallic and Ceramic Fixed Prosthodontic Materials after Scaling vol.14, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041027
  2. Oral prosthetic microbiology: aspects related to the oral microbiome, surface properties, and strategies for controlling biofilms vol.37, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2021.1912741
  3. Comparison of surface topography and roughness in different yttrium oxide compositions of dental zirconia after grinding and polishing vol.13, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.258
  4. Effect of Grinding and Subsequent Various Surface Treatments on the Surface Roughness of Full Contour Monolithic Zirconia vol.10, pp.32, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2021/537