The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of different surface finishing protocols for zirconia on surface roughness and bacterial biofilm formation

  • Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, ITRD, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Mai, Hang-Nga (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, ITRD, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Thant, Phyu Pwint (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, ITRD, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Hong, Su-Hyung (Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Jaewon (Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, State University of New York at Buffalo) ;
  • Jeong, Seung-Mi (Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2018.07.10
  • Accepted : 2019.01.21
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Surface finishing of a zirconia restoration is essential after clinical adjustment. Herein, we investigated the effects of a surface finishing protocol for monolithic zirconia on final roughness and bacterial adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty-eight disk-shaped monolithic zirconia specimens were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 12) based on initial surface treatment, finishing, and polishing protocols: diamond bur+polishing bur (DP group), diamond bur+stone grinding bur+polishing bur (DSP group), no diamond bur+polishing bur (NP group), and no diamond bur+stone grinding bur+polishing bur (NSP group). Initial and final surface roughness was measured with a profilometer, and shown using scanning electron microscope. Bacterial adhesion was evaluated by quantifying Streptococcus mutans in the biofilm. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare results among groups, and two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effects of grinding burs on final roughness (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The DP group had the highest final Ra value, followed by the DSP, NP, and NSP groups. Use of the stone grinding bur as a coarse-finishing step significantly decreased final Ra values when a diamond bur was used (P<.001). Omission of the stone grinding bur increased biofilm formation on specimen surfaces. Combining a stone grinding bur with silicone polishing burs produced the smallest final biofilm values, regardless of the use of a diamond bur in initial surface treatment. CONCLUSION. Coarse finishing of monolithic zirconia with a stone grinding bur significantly decreased final Ra values and bacterial biofilm formation when surfaces had been roughened by a diamond bur.

Keywords

References

  1. Caglar I, Ates SM, Yesil Duymus Z. The effect of various polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10: 132-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.132
  2. Chavali R, Lin CP, Lawson NC. Evaluation of different polishing systems and speeds for dental zirconia. J Prosthodont 2017;26:410-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12396
  3. Kim HK, Kim SH, Lee JB, Ha SR. Effects of surface treatments on the translucency, opalescence, and surface texture of dental monolithic zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115:773-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.020
  4. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH, Ahn JS, Ryu JJ. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent 2012;40:979-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004
  5. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:68-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x
  6. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
  7. Yuzugullu B, Celik C, Burak Ozcelik T, Erkut S, Yurdakul P, Ocal Y, Sener B. The effect of different polishing sequences on the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to feldspathic Porcelain. J Adhes 2016;92:939-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2015.1059763
  8. 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;13:258-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  9. Lee BC, Jung GY, Kim DJ, Han JS. Initial bacterial adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:81-4. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.81
  10. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57:236-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001
  11. Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Evaluation of various polishing systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:440-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.021
  12. Preis V, Grumser K, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, Rosentritt M. The effectiveness of polishing kits: influence on surface roughness of zirconia. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:149-51. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4153
  13. Ho CM, Ding H, Chen X, Tsoi JK, Botelho MG. The effects of dry and wet grinding on the strength of dental zirconia. Ceram Int 2018;44:10451-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.03.062
  14. Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. Strength and reliability of surface treated Y-TZP dental ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:304-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2000)53:4<304::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-S
  15. Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 1999; 15:426-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00070-6
  16. Lee KR, Choe HC, Heo YR, Lee JJ, Son MK. Effect of different grinding burs on the physical properties of zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:137-43. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.2.137
  17. Gilan I, Sivan A. Extracellular DNA plays an important structural role in the biofilm of the plastic degrading actinomycete Rhodo-coccus ruber. Adv Microbiol 2013;3:543-51. https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2013.38073
  18. O'Toole GA. Microtiter dish biofilm formation assay. J Vis Exp 2011;47:2437.
  19. Han A, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, Chen Z. Influence of grit- Blasting and hydrofluoric acid etching treatment on surface characteristics and biofilm formation on zirconia. Coatings 2017;7:130. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings7080130
  20. Kim HK, Kim SH. Comparison of the optical properties of pre-colored dental monolithic zirconia ceramics sintered in a conventional furnace versus a microwave oven. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:394-401. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.394
  21. Goo CL, Yap A, Tan K, Fawzy AS. Effect of polishing systems on surface roughness and topography of monolithic zirconia. Oper Dent 2016;41:417-23. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-064-L

Cited by

  1. Influence of grinding parameters on phase transformation, surface roughness, and grinding cost of bioceramic partially stabilized zirconia (PSZ) using diamond grinding wheel vol.105, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04505-4
  2. Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Topography of Monolith Zirconia vol.10, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1290
  3. Influence of Additive Firing on the Surface Characteristics, Streptococcus mutans Viability and Optical Properties of Zirconia vol.14, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051286