• Carlos A Jurado, Saad Alresayes, Silvia Rojas-Rueda, Ali Alqahtani, Akimasa Tsujimoto, Nicholas G Fischer, and Kelvin I Afrashtehfar.
• Department of Prosthodontics, University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
• Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 May 29; 59 (6).

AbstractBackground and Objective: This study aimed to compare the surface finish of milled leucite-reinforced ceramics polished with ceramic and composite polishing systems based on the manufacturers' recommendations. Materials and Methods: Sixty subtractive computer-aided manufactured (s-CAM) leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic specimens (IPS-Empress-CAD) were assigned into six groups: no polishing, a ceramic polishing kit, and four composite kit groups. The roughness average (Ra) was evaluated in microns using a profilometer, and scanning electron micrographs were obtained for qualitative analysis. A Tukey HSD posthoc test (α = 0.05) was used to determine significant intergroup differences. Results: After surface evaluation of the ceramics, the Ra values of the polishing systems ranked OptraFine (0.41 ± 0.26) < Enhance (1.60 ± 0.54) < Shofu (2.14 ± 0.44) < Astropol (4.05 ± 0.72) < DiaComp (5.66 ± 0.62) < No Polishing (5.66 ± 0.74). Discussion: Composite polishing systems did not provide as smooth surfaces as the ceramic polishing kit for CAD-CAM leucite-reinforced ceramics. Thus, using ceramic polishing systems, polishing leucite ceramics is recommended, whereas composite polishing systems should not be considered as an alternative for use in minimally invasive dentistry.

17 keywords...

hide…