دوره 11، شماره 3 - ( 6-1405 )
جلد 11 شماره 3 صفحات 258-251 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Ethics code: IR.IAU.DENTAL.REC.1399.208
Clinical trials code: IR.IAU.DENTAL.REC.1399.208
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghelmani S M, Nahidi R, Zarbakhsh A. Effect of Polishing and Glazing on Microhardness of Monolithic Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate, and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate CAD/CAM Ceramics: An In Vitro Study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2026; 11 (3) :251-258
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-919-fa.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-919-fa.html
Effect of Polishing and Glazing on Microhardness of Monolithic Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate, and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate CAD/CAM Ceramics: An In Vitro Study. . 1405; 11 (3) :251-258
چکیده: (10 مشاهده)
Background and Aim: This study aimed to assess the effect of polishing and glazing on microhardness of monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate (LDS), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, square-shaped specimens (10 x 10 x 1 mm) were fabricated from Suprinity, IPS e.max CAD, and Incoris ZI ceramics (n=24 from each). Each group was subdivided into three subgroups (n=8) for (I) glazing, (II) polishing with Diapol Twist kit, and (III) no surface treatment (control). Microhardness was assessed using Vickers hardness tester. Comparisons were made with two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (alpha=0.05).
Results: Ceramic type had a significant effect on microhardness (P<0.001) such that Incoris ZI showed the highest, and IPS e.max CAD showed the lowest microhardness (P<0.05). The effect of surface treatment on microhardness was also significant (P<0.001) such that the control group showed the highest and the polishing group showed the lowest microhardness (P<0.05). The interaction effect of ceramic type and surface treatment on microhardness was not significant (P=0.454).
Conclusion: Within the study limitations, the findings showed that the microhardness values differed significantly across groups, and the control group had a higher microhardness than the polishing and glazing groups. The values tended to be higher for Incoris ZI ceramic, indicating that this ceramic may demonstrate greater wear resistance in clinical situations.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, square-shaped specimens (10 x 10 x 1 mm) were fabricated from Suprinity, IPS e.max CAD, and Incoris ZI ceramics (n=24 from each). Each group was subdivided into three subgroups (n=8) for (I) glazing, (II) polishing with Diapol Twist kit, and (III) no surface treatment (control). Microhardness was assessed using Vickers hardness tester. Comparisons were made with two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (alpha=0.05).
Results: Ceramic type had a significant effect on microhardness (P<0.001) such that Incoris ZI showed the highest, and IPS e.max CAD showed the lowest microhardness (P<0.05). The effect of surface treatment on microhardness was also significant (P<0.001) such that the control group showed the highest and the polishing group showed the lowest microhardness (P<0.05). The interaction effect of ceramic type and surface treatment on microhardness was not significant (P=0.454).
Conclusion: Within the study limitations, the findings showed that the microhardness values differed significantly across groups, and the control group had a higher microhardness than the polishing and glazing groups. The values tended to be higher for Incoris ZI ceramic, indicating that this ceramic may demonstrate greater wear resistance in clinical situations.
نوع مطالعه: Original article |
موضوع مقاله:
Restorative Dentistry
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |