Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials.
Conventional and CAD-CAM ceramic restorations often require adjustments that result in a need to reduce surface roughness. Surface roughness resulting from five polishing systems on two ceramics was assessed. Disks of Ceramco II and Dicor MGC ceramic blocks were polished with five combinations of 45, 25, and 10 microns diamonds; a 30-fluted carbide; three silicon carbide-impregnated rubber points; 4 and 1 micron diamond gels; and an aluminum oxide point and two aluminum oxide pastes. Five profilometer average roughness measurements (Ra) were taken of five replications of each step in each sequence. Controls were autoglazed Ceramco II and Dicor MGC ceramic specimens milled with a Cerec diamond wheel. Feldspathic porcelain could be polished smoother than glazed. Dicor ceramic could be polished smoother than Ceramco II ceramic. Finishing diamond points followed by diamond gels produced the smoothest surface. A 30-fluted carbide did not improve smoothness as used. The aluminum oxide point followed by aluminum oxide pastes was equivalent to finishing diamonds and gels for Dicor ceramic.
Scurria
M S
MS
Dept. of Prosthodontics, University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill.
Powers
J M
JM
D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002244:Carbon; D017554:Carbon Compounds, Inorganic; D002516:Ceramics; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003776:Dental Porcelain; D018130:Diamond; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D017655:Silicon Compounds; D013499:Surface Properties
D017554:Carbon Compounds, Inorganic; C047475:Dicor ceramic; D017655:Silicon Compounds; D003776:Dental Porcelain; D002244:Carbon; D018130:Diamond; C058233:Ceramco; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; C022088:silicon carbide