Fırçalamanın Zamana Bağlı CAD/CAM Materyallerinin Pürüzlülüğüne Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı kimyasal içeriklere sahip CAD/CAM tam seramiklerin fırçalama sonrası yüzey pürüzlülüğünü değerlendirmektir. Çalışmada CAD/CAM feldspatik seramik blok olan Cerec Blok, lityum disilikat ile güçlendirilmiş IPS E.max CAD blok ve zirkonyum ile güçlendirilmis lityum silikat CAD/CAM blok olan Vita Suprinity kullanıldı. Bloklar 2 mm kalınlığında olacak şekilde kesildi. Her bir örnek grubunda 15 örnek olacak ve zamana bağlı olarak iki alt grup olacak şekilde toplam 90 örnek elde edildi. IPS E.max CAD ve Vita Suprinity örneklere üretici firma talimatları doğrultusunda kristalizayon işlemi yapıldı ve ardından tüm örneklere glaze işlemi uygulandı. Örnekler bilgisayar kontrollü bir diş fırçalama simülatörüne İleri-geri hareket, hareket mesafesi 20 mm, frekans 1,25 Hz ve kuvvet 3N olacak şekilde ayarlanarak yerleştirildi. 6 aylık yıllık diş fırçalama taklit etmek amacı ile 3650 siklus uygulandı. Örneklerin 6 aylık ve 1 yıllık 2D kontak profilometre kullanılarak yüzey pürüzlülüğü ölçüldü. Verilerin analizi Shapiro-Wilk testi, Levene testi, 2 yönlü ANOVA varyans analizi ve Bonferroni testi ile değerlendirildi. CAD/CAM seramik örneklerin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne göre en yüksek 2,28μm ile Cerec blok grubunda; en düşük 1,78μm Vita Suprinity grubunda elde edildi. Cerec Blok ile diğer örnek grupları arasında anlamlı fark görüldü.(p<0,05). IPS E.max CAD ile Vita Suprinity grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı görülmedi.(p>0,05). Örneklerin zamana bağlı fırçalamaya bağlı pürüzlülük değerlerinde anlamlı fark görülmedi.(p>0,05) Çalışma sonucunda tüm örneklerin klinik olarak kabul edilen 0,2 μm pürüzlük değerini aştığı görülmüştür. Materyallerin sertliği ve inorganik içeriği arttıkça pürüzlülük değerinin azaldığı söylenebilir.

Keywords

• CAD/CAM seramik
• fırçalama
• yüzey pürüzlülüğü

The Effect of Brushing on the Roughness of Time-Related CAD/CAM Materials

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface roughness of CAD/CAM all ceramics with different chemical contents after brushing. A CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramic block(Cerec Block), lithium disilicate reinforced ceramic blok(IPS E.max CAD), and a lithium silicate CAD/CAM block reinforced with zirconium(Vita Suprinity), were used in the study. The blocks were cut to a thickness of 2 mm. A total of 90 samples were obtained, with 15 samples in each sample group and two subgroups depending on time. IPS E.max CAD and Vita Suprinity samples were crystallized in according with the manufacturer's instructions and then glazed was applied to all samples. The samples were placed in a computer-controlled toothbrushing simulator by adjusting the forward-backward motion, the range of motion 20 mm, the frequency 1.25 Hz, and the force 3N. 6 month annual tooth brushing. In order to imitate, 3650 cycles were applied. Surface roughness of the samples was measured using a 6-month and 1-year 2D contact profilometer. Data analysis was evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene test, 2-way ANOVA analysis of variance and Bonferroni test. According to the surface roughness of CAD/CAM ceramic samples, with the highest 2.28μm, in the Cerec block group; the lowest was obtained in the 1.78μm Vita Suprinity group. There was a significant difference between Cerec Blok and other sample groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between IPS E.max CAD and Vita Suprinity groups (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in the roughness values of the samples due to time-dependent brushing (p>0.05). As a result of the study, it was observed that all samples exceeded the clinically accepted roughness value of 0.2 μm. It can be said that as the hardness and inorganic content of the materials increase, the roughness value decreases.

Keywords

• Brushing
• CAD/CAM ceramic
• surface roughness

References

1. 1. McLean JW. Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(1):61-6.
2. 2. Carrabba M, Vichi A, Vultaggio G, Pallari S, Paravina R, Ferrari M. Effect of Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Feldspathic Ceramic for Chairside CAD/CAM Systems. Oper Dent. 2017;42(2):175-84.
3. 3. Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater. 2008;24(11):1556-67.
4. 4. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17(2):102-8; discussion 9.
5. 5. Adachi LK, Saiki M, Campos TND, Adachi EM, Shinkai RS. Initial enamel wear of glazed and polished leucite-based porcelains with different fusing temperatures. General dentistry. 2009.
6. 6. Baldissara P, Wandscher VF, Marchionatti AME, Parisi C, Monaco C, Ciocca L. Translucency of IPS e.max and cubic zirconia monolithic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(2):269-75.
7. 7. Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Swain M. Clinical trials in zirconia: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(8):641-52.
8. 8. Matsuzaki F, Sekine H, Honma S, Takanashi T, Furuya K, Yajima Y, et al. Translucency and flexural strength of monolithic translucent zirconia and porcelain-layered zirconia. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(6):910-7.

9. 9. Mohammadibassir M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, Moravej Salehi E, Fahimi MA, Kharazi Fard MJ. Effect of Two Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness, Topography, and Flexural Strength of a Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e172-e80.
10. 10. Schultheis S, Strub JR, Gerds TA, Guess PC. Monolithic and bi-layer CAD/CAM lithium disilicate versus metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: comparison of fracture loads and failure modes after fatigue. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(5):1407-13.
11. 11. Borchers L, Tavassol F, Tschernitschek H. Surface quality achieved by polishing and by varnishing of temporary crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82(5):550-6.
12. 12. Al-Wahadni A, Martin DM. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998;64(8):580-3.
13. 13. Kursoglu P, Karagoz Motro PF, Kazazoglu E. Correlation of surface texture with the stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):306-13.
14. 14. Fahmy NZ, El Guindy J, Zamzam M. Effect of artificial saliva storage on microhardness and fracture toughness of a hydrothermal glass-ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(4):324-31.
15. 15. Alencar-Silva FJ, Barreto JO, Negreiros WA, Silva PGB, Pinto-Fiamengui LMS, Regis RR. Effect of beverage solutions and toothbrushing on the surface roughness, microhardness, and color stainability of a vitreous CAD-CAM lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):711.e1-.e6.
16. 16. Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Fonseca RG. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(2):318.e1-.e8.
17. 17. Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Werner A, Anami LC, Bottino MA, Kleverlaan CJ. Three-body wear effect on different CAD/CAM ceramics staining durability. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;103:103579.
18. 18. Şen N, Tuncelli B, Göller G. Surface deterioration of monolithic CAD/CAM restorative materials after artificial abrasive toothbrushing. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(4):271-8.
19. 19. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258-69.