ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the staining resistance of CAD/CAM resin-ceramics polished with different techniques and to determine the effectiveness of the polishing techniques on resin-ceramics, comparing it with that of a glazed glass-ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different CAD/CAM ceramics (feldspathic ceramic: C-CEREC Blocs, (SIRONA) and three resin-ceramics: L-Lava Ultimate, (3M ESPE), E-Enamic, (VITA) and CS-CeraSmart, (GC)) and one light cure composite resin: ME-Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (Kuraray) were used. Only C samples were glazed (gl). Other restorations were divided into four groups according to the polishing technique: nonpolished control group (c), a group polished with light cure liquid polish (Biscover LV BISCO) (bb), a group polished with ceramic polishing kit (Diapol, EVE) (cd), and a group polished with composite polishing kit (Clearfil Twist Dia, Kuraray) (kc). Glazed C samples and the polished samples were further divided into four subgroups and immersed into different solutions: distilled water, tea, coffee, and fermented black carrot juice. Eight samples (8 × 8 × 1 mm) were prepared for each subgroup. According to CIELab system, four color measurements were made: before immersion, immersion after 1 day, after 1 week, and after 1 month. Data were analyzed with repeated measures of ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS: The highest staining resistance was found in gl samples. There was no difference among gl, kc and cd (P>.05). Staining resistance of gl was significantly higher than that of bb (P<.05). Staining resistances of E and CS were significantly higher than those of L and ME (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Ceramic and composite polishing kits can be used for resin ceramics as a counterpart of glazing procedure used for full ceramic materials. Liquid polish has limited indications for resin ceramics.
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A soft lining is applied under a removable prosthesis for various reasons. The porosity of the lining material may increase colonization by microorganisms and cause tissue inflammation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of sealer coating on the surface roughness of soft lining materials under 4 different conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 125 specimens were prepared. One high-temperature silicone-based soft lining material and 2 room-temperature-polymerized soft lining materials (1 silicone-based and 1 methacrylate-based) were used. Twenty-five specimens of each room-temperature soft lining material were coated with 2 layers of surface sealer. Additionally, 5 specimens of each material were stored in either distilled water, Coca-Cola, denture cleanser, saliva, or air. The surface roughness was measured at baseline and after 1, 7, 14, and 28 days. Surface roughness values were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance, and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test was performed using time-dependent groups and storage methods. RESULTS: In the time-dependent groups, methacrylate-based sealer-coated soft liners exhibited a significant increase in roughness (1.74-2.09 µm, P<.001), and silicone-based sealer-coated soft liners exhibited a decrease in roughness, but it was not significant (2.16-2.02 µm, P>.05). Therefore, the sealer coating was not effective in reducing surface roughness. Among the time-dependent storage methods, the denture cleanser exhibited an almost significant increase in roughness (1.83-1.99 µm, P=.054). Coca-Cola and artificial saliva did not show a significant difference (P>.05). However, a significant decrease in roughness was found with distilled water (P=.02) and air (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in surface roughness were found among the different types of soft liners. The sealer coating had no significant effect, and denture cleanser slightly increased the surface roughness. Contrary to expectations, the roughness did not increase in all groups over time.
