| Autor: |
Zarbah M; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Yaqoob A; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Basamad MA; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Saad MS; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Alghubairani HA; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Alsubaiy EF; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia. |
| Abstrakt: |
BACKGROUND This 3-dimensional (3D) optical study aimed to evaluate the effects of microwave glazing on the surface roughness of zirconia-reinforced glass. Glazed surfaces of ceramic provide a smooth and esthetically superior restoration. There are many methods of glazing. However, this study aims to evaluate the effect of microwave glazing on ceramic restorations over conventional oven and hand polishing. MATERIAL AND METHODS A sample size of 90 ceramic material tiles was derived according to the standard sample size formula. The 3 dental ceramics used were IPS e.max CAD (lithium disilicate ceramic; IvoclarVivadent), Suprinity (zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate; VITA Zahnfabrik), and Celtra Duo zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate; Dentsply Sirona). Each group was further divided equally to undergo conventional oven glazing, hand polishing, and microwave glazing. The final glazed surfaces were then evaluated for surface roughness with the Ra parameter, using a Contour GT 3D Optical Microscope (Bruker) and 3D non-contact surface metrology with interferometry. RESULTS The ANOVA test for intergroup comparison showed microwave glazing was a significantly better glazing method than conventional oven and hand polishing (P<0.05). A statistically significant difference was shown between conventional and microwave glazing; however, the difference was greater between conventionally glazed and hand-polished specimens. Furthermore, a highly significant difference between microwave-glazed and hand-polished specimens was observed. CONCLUSIONS Results showed that irrespective of the ceramic, microwave-glazed ceramics were better than traditional oven-glazed ceramics, and hand-polishing resulted in a rougher surface than glazing. Irrespective of the surface treatment methods, IPS e.max CAD ceramic showed a relatively smoother surface than did Suprinity and Celtra Duo. |
