SURFACE ANALYSIS OF CERCE RESTORATIONS POLISHED BY DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE.
- Author:
Sung Gwang KIM
1
;
Mong Sook VANG
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Dental Enamel;
Dental Porcelain;
Diamond
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
1997;35(1):31-42
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
This study was performed to investigate the surface roughness of the Cerec Vita Mark II polished by various polishing techniques, compare with that of the Vintage enamel porcelain glazed by high temperature glazing technique. All of the Cerec specimen were finished with sequential use of high speed diamond burs(grit 45, 30 and 15microneter). The groups were divided into 5 groups : Group I : Cerec Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Sof-lex discs. Group II : Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Two Striper MPS. Group III: Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Enhance. Group IV: Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Porcelain laminate polishing FG kit. Group V: Vintage enamel porcelain glazed by high temperature glazing Technique. Each group was consisted of 10 specimens. The surfaces produced were examined quantitatively using a laser specular reflectance machine(Perthen RM600-s, Feinpruf Perthen GmbH., Germany) and qualitatively under SEM(JSM-5400, JEOL, Japan). The Results were as follows : 1. The arithmetic mean roughness value(Ra) in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 was higher than that of group5. There was statistically significant difference(P<0.05). 2. The arithmetic mean roughness value(Ra) decreased in the following orders : group 1, group 2, group 4, group 3 and there was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2, group 3, and group 4. There was statistically significant difference among group 1, 2, and group 3, 4 and group 5(P<0.05). 3. The maximum individual peak-to-valley-height(Rmax) decreased in the following orders : group 2, group 1, group 4, group 3, group 5 and there was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and 2, group 1 and group 4, group 3 and group 5. There was statistically significant difference among group 1, 2, and group 1, 4 and group 3, 5(P<0.05). 4. The treated surfaces of group 5 had smoother surface than that of groups 1, 2, 3, 4 with SEM.
