Effect of erosive and abrasive challenges on the glaze layer applied to ceramic materials.

Autor: Willers AE; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., da Silva BTF; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Siriani LK; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Cesar PF; Department of Biomaterials and Oral Biology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Matos AB; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] [J Esthet Restor Dent] 2020 Dec; Vol. 32 (8), pp. 815-822. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Aug 22.
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12643
Abstrakt: Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the effect of erosive, abrasive, and erosive/abrasive challenges on the glaze layer of ceramic materials.
Methods: Ninety-five samples of monolithic zirconia (MZ) (LuxaCam Zircon HT-Plus) and lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max CAD) were divided according to the response variables: Surface roughness and surface loss (n = 10), evaluated with optical profilometry; surface topography, with scanning electron microscopy SEM (n = 3); and biofilm deposition, with microbiological assay (n = 5). The evaluations were performed in three different time evaluations: (a) Sintered, (b) Glaze, and (c) Challenge (Erosion, Abrasion, and Erosion/Abrasion). Erosion consisted in immersing specimens in HCl solution, abrasion was performed with brushing machine, and erosion/abrasion consisted of a combination of the two previous protocols. Data were analyzed with parametric tests (P < 0.05).
Results: MZ glaze layer presented significantly higher surface roughness (P = 0.00), surface loss (P = 0.03), and biofilm deposition (P = 0.00) than LD. Abrasion and erosion/abrasion showed similar outcomes, generating significantly higher surface roughness (P = 0.00), surface loss (P = 0.00), and biofilm deposition (P = 0.01) than erosion.
Conclusions: Glaze layer properties were altered by the challenges, with abrasion and erosion/abrasion generating higher surface roughness, surface loss, and biofilm deposition than erosion. A significant correlation was found between the surface roughness and biofilm deposition.
Clinical Significance: The glaze layer is susceptible to challenges, especially to abrasion and erosion/abrasion, which generated greater surface roughness and surface loss than erosion. The greater surface roughness lead to a greater biofilm deposition on the glaze layer.
(© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: