Comparative overview of feldspathic porcelain polishing in vitro using intraoral instruments and diamond pastes.

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published: Jan 3, 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18272/oi.v1i1.92
Issue
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2015)
Section
Artículos Rehabilitación Oral

Main Article Content

María Lorena López Véjar
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Pablo Proaño Flores
Universidad San Francisco de Quito

Abstract

This experimental in vitro study compares, by using a profilometer ( Surftest - III , Mitutoyo), the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain that was abraded and then polished using different intraoral instruments like a fine grained diamond bur, ceramic polishing kits, and diamond pastes of different granulation. In the control group the samples were glazed and then polished using extraoral instruments in a dental laboratory. ANOVA tests and multiple comparison statistics were performed. The results indicate that a suitable combination of a fine-grained diamond bur, 3 rubber points (Porcelain Polishing Kit, Jota) and diamond pastes of 1 micron and 0.5 microns (Diamond Polish, Ultradent), used in that order produce less surface roughness in the porcelain samples. These findings are important because they indicate as an alternative, an intraoral polishing procedure, after abrading a ceramic restoration.

Keywords:
polish, porcelain, intraoral instruments, diamond paste, roughness,

Article Details

How to Cite
López Véjar, M. L., & Proaño Flores, P. (2015). Comparative overview of feldspathic porcelain polishing in vitro using intraoral instruments and diamond pastes. OdontoInvestigación, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.18272/oi.v1i1.92
Author Biographies

María Lorena López Véjar, Universidad San Francisco de Quito

Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Colegio de Ciencias de la Salud, Escuela de Odontología, Clínica Odontológica, Campus Cumbayá, oficina CO 106, casilla postal 1 7-1200-841. Quito-Ecuador.

Pablo Proaño Flores, Universidad San Francisco de Quito

Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Colegio de Ciencias de la Salud, Escuela de Odontología, Clínica Odontológica, Campus Cumbayá, oficina CO 106, casilla postal 1 7-1200-841. Quito-Ecuador.

References

Sarikaya I. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelain. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18(1):10-16.

Scurria M. Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:174-177.

Smith G. The surface finish of trimmed porcelain. Br Dent J.1981; 151:222-224.

Sulik W. Surface finishing of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46:217­21.

Wright M. Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):486-490.

Al-Wahadni A. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998; 64(8):580-3.

Jagger D. An in-vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on dentine. J Oral Rehab. 1995;22:349-52.

Jagger D. An in-vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on enamel. J Oral Rehab. 1995;22:275-81.

Sarac D. The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldespathic porcelain. J Prost Dent. 2006; 96(2): 122-128.

Karagoz P. Effects of different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108:231-237.

Tuncdemir R. The effects of porcelain polishing techniques on the color and surface texture of different porcelain systems. Mat Scie and Appli. 2012; 3:294­300.

Rosenstiel S. A comparison of glazed and polished dental porcelain. Int J Prosthodont. 1989 2:524-9.

Owen S. Finishing and polishing porcelain surfaces chairside. Int Dent J Australasian Edition. 2011; 6(4):68-73.

Reality Publishing Co. REALITY: the information source for aesthetic dentistry. REALITY'S CHOICES: The Ratings; Polishing Instruments 2006; 20.

Ahmad B. Polishing mechanism and its effect on the mechanical properties of ceramic restorations: a review of literature. Dent Univ Malaya. 2001; 8:57-61.

Grieve A. An evaluation of three methods of polishing porcelain by comparison of surface topography with the original glaze. J Rest Dent. 1991;7(2):34-36.

Patterson C. Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65:383-8.

Raimondo R. Polished versus autoglazed dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:553-7.

Camacho G. Surface roughness of a dental ceramic after polishing with different vehicles and diamond pastes Braz Dent J. 2008; 17(3):191-194.

Goldstein G. Profilometer, SEM, and visual assessment of porcelain polishing methods. J Prosth Dent. 1991; 65(5):627- 634.

Klausner L. Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47:157-62.

Patterson C. Efficacy of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring surface finish after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68(3):402-406.

Kelly J. Ceramics in dentistry: historical roots and current perspective. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76(1): 18-32.

Brewer J. Clinical discrimination between autoglazed and polished porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:631-5.

Morrow R. Evaluation of methods of polishing porcelain denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1973; 30(2):222-226.

Most read articles by the same author(s)