Surface Roughness of Milled Lithium Disilicate With and Without Reinforcement After Finishing and Polishing: An In Vitro Study

Purpose To determine the efficacy of various finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials, lithium disilicate (IPS e.max), lithium disilicate reinforced with lithium aluminosilicate (Straumann(R)n!ce (TM)), and a stackable low-fusing nanofluorapatite glass ceramic (Ceram). Materials and Methods Flat specimens (n = 12) per treatment group were fabricated 2 mm thick, 15 mm in length, and 12mm in width. Samples were either glazed or polished. Glazing was accomplished with either Ivoclar IPS e.max CAD crystall glaze spray or IPS e.max Ceram glaze paste, according to manufacturer instructions. Three different polishing systems were tested: Brasseler Dialite HP, Ivoclar OptraFine, and Komet LD/ZR. Polishing was performed using a Kavo adjustable slow speed electric contra-angle handpiece mounted to an oscillating Toothbrush Dentifrice Assessment Instrument. Surface roughness data was collected using a benchtop stylus profilometer and analyzed for statistical significance using two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05). Representative scanning electron micrograph images were generated for all samples. Results Overall there was no significant difference in Ra when comparing types of ceramic (p= 0.9315, F = 0.071). However, there was a statistically significant difference when comparing groups of finishing treatments (p< 0.001, F = 113.5) and also when comparing finishing treatment with ceramic type (p< 0.001, F = 11.13). No significant difference was found with IPS e.max CAD crystall glaze spray on Straumann(R)n!ce (TM) versus IPS e.max Ceram glaze paste on IPS e.max Ceram (p= 0.8745) or IPS e.max CAD crystall glaze spray on IPS e.max versus IPS e.max Ceram glaze paste on IPS e.max Ceram (p= 0.3373). Significant differences in Ra of Straumann(R)n!ce (TM) were found when comparing Brasseler with Ivoclar (p= 0.0014) and Ivoclar with Komet (p= 0.047). No significant difference was observed between Brasseler and Komet (p= 0.8099). Conclusions It appears that the degree of surface roughness depends upon the specific finishing system and ceramic combination used. Straumann(R)n!ce (TM) is more efficiently polished using Brasseler Dialite HP or Komet LD/ZR polishing systems. Ivoclar crystal glaze spray was found to be equally as effective on Straumann(R)n!ce (TM) and IPS e.max as IPS e.max Ceram glaze paste on IPS e.max Ceram.