title: Comparison of the effects of surface treatments on roughness of two ceramic systems.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the surface roughness of lithium disilicate-based core (IPS Empress 2, shade 210, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and feldspathic ceramics (Vita VM9, VITA Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany).
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Er:YAG laser irradiation is expected to be an alternative surface treatment, thus enhances surface roughness of procelains and produces morphological changes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty lithium disilicate-based core ceramic discs and 50 feldspathic ceramic discs were prepared (diameter, 10 mm; thickness, 1 mm) according to the manufacturers' instructions. All-ceramic discs were polished to standardize, and surface roughness of the discs was evaluated before treatment and serving as controls. Both of two ceramic groups were divided into five groups (n=10), and the following treatments were applied: (1) sandblasting with aluminum oxide (Al(2)O(3); Group SB); (2) Al(2)O(3)+Er:YAG laser (Group SB-L); (3) Er:YAG laser irradiation (distance, 1 mm; 500 mJ; 20 Hz; 10W; manually, contact handpiece [R 14]) (Group L); (4) 5% hydrofluoric acid etching (Group HF); and (5) Er:YAG laser +5% hydrofluoric acid (Group HF-L). Surface roughness was evaluated by profilometry, and specimens were then examined with atomic force microscopy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α=0.05). The Wilcoxon signed rank test results indicated that surface roughness after sandblasting was significantly different from the surface roughness after laser irradiation and acid etching (p<0.001). Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test results indicated that groups SB and SB-L had significantly higher mean roughness values (p<0.05) than those in the other groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Groups SB and SB-L had rougher surfaces than the groups subjected to the other surface treatment methods. There was no significant difference in surface roughness between the HF acid etching, Er:YAG laser irradiation, and HF and Er:YAG (p<0 .05).
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. dilberhan@gmail.com
authors.forename: Erhan
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Dilber
authors.forename: Tevfik
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Yavuz
authors.forename: Haluk Baris
authors.initials: HB
authors.lastname: Kara
authors.forename: A Nilgun
authors.initials: AN
authors.lastname: Ozturk
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods*; D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000494:pharmacology; D020906:Air Abrasion, Dental; D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000494:pharmacology; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000494:pharmacology; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000528:radiation effects*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D006801:Humans; D006858:Hydrofluoric Acid / Q000494:pharmacology; D053844:Lasers, Solid-State / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D008422:Materials Testing; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000494:pharmacology; D012016:Reference Values; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000494:pharmacology; D012494:Sampling Studies; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins; D011140:Polyurethanes; D019279:Resin Cements; C513703:Vivadent; D003776:Dental Porcelain; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D006858:Hydrofluoric Acid