THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SURFACE TREATMENT TECHNIQUES ON THE SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF FELDSPATHIC PORCELAIN

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study compared the effect of five different techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain.

Materials and Methods: 100 feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into five groups (n=20) according to type of surface treatment: I, hydrofluoric acid (HFA); II, Deglazed surface porcelain treated with Neodymium:yttrium- aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; III, Deglazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser; IV, Glazed porcelain surface treated with Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser, V; Glazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser. The surface roughness of porcelain was measured with a noncontact optical profilometer. For each porcelain sample, two readings were taken across the sample, before porcelain surface treatment (T1) and after porcelain surface treatment (T2). The roughness parameter analyzed was the average roughness (Ra). Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results: Mean Ra values for each group were as follows: I, 12.64+073; II, 11.91+0.74; III, 11.76+0.59; IV, 3.82 +0.65; V, 2.77 + 0.57. For all porcelain groups, the lowest Ra values were observed in Group V. The highest Ra values were observed for Group I, with a significant difference with the other groups. Kolmogorov–Smirnov showed significant differences among groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Surface treatment of porcelain with HFA resulted in significantly higher Ra than laser groups. Both Er:YAG laser or Nd:YAG laser on the deglaze porcelain surface can be recommended as viable treatment alternatives to acid etching.

Keywords

• Porcelain roughness,optical profilometry; hydrofluoric acid; Er-YAG laser,Nd:YAG laser; surface treatment

References

1. Asmussen E, Munksgaard EC. Bonding of restorative resins to dentine: Status of dentine adhesives and impact on cavity design and filling techniques. Int Dent J 1988;38(2):97-104.
2. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2004;32(2):91-99.
3. Ozcan M, Vallittu PK, Peltomaki T, Huysmans MC, Kalk W. Bonding polycarbonate brackets to ceramic: effects of substrate treatment on bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(2):220-227.
4. Smith GA, McInnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain--bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(3):245-252.
5. Harari D, Shapira-Davis S, Gillis I, Roman I, Redlich M. Tensile bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain facets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(5):551-554.
6. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109(4):420-430.
7. Kim JT, Cho SA. The effects of laser etching on shear bond strength at the titanium ceramic interface. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(2):101-106.
8. Li R, Ren Y, Han J. [Effects of pulsed nd:Yag laser irradiation on shear bond strength of composite resin bonded to porcelain]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2000;18(6):377-379.

9. de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Braz Dent J 2007;18(4):314-319.
10. Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):725-731.
11. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(5):479-488.
12. Bottino MC, Ozcan M, Coelho PG, Valandro LF, Bressiani JC, Bressiani AH. Micro-morphological changes prior to adhesive bonding: High-alumina and glassy-matrix ceramics. Braz Oral Res 2008;22(2):158-163.
13. Kukiattrakoon B, Thammasitboon K. Optimal acidulated phosphate fluoride gel etching time for surface treatment of feldspathic porcelain: On shear bond strength to resin composite. Eur J Dent 2012;6(1):63-69.
14. Walsh LJ, Abood D, Brockhurst PJ. Bonding of resin composite to carbon dioxide laser-modified human enamel. Dent Mater 1994;10(3):162-166.
15. da Silva Ferreira S, Hanashiro FS, de Souza-Zaroni WC, Turbino ML, Youssef MN. Influence of aluminum oxide sandblasting associated with nd:Yag or er:Yag lasers on shear bond strength of a feldspathic ceramic to resin cements. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28(4):471-475.
16. Kara HB, Dilber E, Koc O, Ozturk AN, Bulbul M. Effect of different surface treatments on roughness of ips empress 2 ceramic. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(2):267-272.
17. Kara HB, Ozturk AN, Aykent F, Koc O, Ozturk B. The effect of different surface treatments on roughness and bond strength in low fusing ceramics. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26(5):599-604.
18. Poosti M, Jahanbin A, Mahdavi P, Mehrnoush S. Porcelain conditioning with ND:YAG and ER:YAG laser for bracket bonding in orthodontics. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(2):321-324.
19. Yassaei S, Moradi F, Aghili H, Kamran MH. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain following etching with ER:YAG laser versus hydrofluoric acid. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2013;14(1):e82-87.
20. Subasi MG, Inan O. Evaluation of the topographical surface changes and roughness of zirconia after different surface treatments. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(4):735-742.
21. Gökçe B. Effects of Er: YAG laser irradiation on dental hard tissues and all-ceramic materials: SEM evaluation. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/scanning- electronmicroscopy/ effects-of-laser-irradiation-on-dental-hard-tissues- and-dental-materials- sem-evaluation-at 12 September, 2014.
22. Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, Uysal H. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128(5):630-637.
23. Usumez S, Orhan M, Usumez A. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding with an Er,Cr:YSGG hydrokinetic laser system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(6):649-656.
24. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(2):159-164.
25. Barcelo Santana HF, Hernandez Medina R, Acosta Torres SL, Sanchez Herrera LM, Fernandez Pedrero AJ, Ortiz Gonzalez R. Evaluation of bond strength of metal brackets by a resin to ceramic surfaces. J Clin Dent 2006;17(1):5-9.
26. Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(5):421-425.
27. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akca K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(6):617-620.
28. Sant'Anna EF, Monnerat ME, Chevitarese O, Stuani MB. Bonding brackets to porcelain--in vitro study. Braz Dent J 2002;13(3):191-196.
29. Goncalves PR, Moraes RR, Costa AR, Correr AB, Nouer PR, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Effect of etching time and light source on the bond strength of metallic brackets to ceramic. Braz Dent J 2011;22(3):245-248.
30. Trakyali G, Malkondu O, Kazazoglu E, Arun T. Effects of different silanes and acid concentrations on bond strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(4):402-406.
31. Al-Nawas B GK, Götz H, Heinrich G, Rippin TG, Stender TE, Duschner H, Wagner W. Validation of three-dimensional surface characterizing methods: scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Scanning 2001;23(4):227-231.
32. Heurich E, Beyer M, Jandt KD, Reichert J, Herold V, Schnabelrauch M, Sigusch BW. Quantification of dental erosion--a comparison of stylus profilometry and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Dent Mater 2010;26(4):326-336.
33. Rodriguez JM, Bartlett DW. A comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements of wear in a laboratory investigation. Dent Mater 2010;26(10):e221-225.
34. Passos VF, Melo MA, Vasconcellos AA, Rodrigues LK, Santiago SL. Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion. Microsc Res Tech 2013;76(2):178-183.
35. Brauchli LM, Baumgartner EM, Ball J, Wichelhaus A. Roughness of enamel surfaces after different bonding and debonding procedures. An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011;72(1):61-67.
36. Fichtel T, Crha M, Langerova E, Biberauer G, Vla in M. Observations on the effects of scaling and polishing methods on enamel. J Vet Dent 2008;25(4):231-235.
37. Lee SY, Lai YL, Morgano SM. Effects of ultrasonic scaling and periodontal curettage on surface roughness of porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(3):227-232.