J Adv Prosthodont.  2019 Apr;11(2):81-87. 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.81.

Effects of different finishing/polishing protocols and systems for monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and biofilm formation

• Mai HN
• Hong SH
• Kim SH
• Lee DH

• KMID: 2444141
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.81

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various protocols and systems for finishing and polishing monolithic zirconia on surface topography, phase transformation, and bacterial adhesion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three hundred monolithic zirconia specimens were fabricated and then treated with three finishing and polishing systems (Jota [JO], Meisinger [ME], and Edenta [ED]) using four surface treatment protocols: coarse finishing alone (C); coarse finishing and medium polishing (CM); coarse finishing and fine polishing (CF); and coarse finishing, medium polishing, and fine polishing (CMF). Surface roughness, crystal phase transformation, and bacterial adhesion were evaluated using atomic force microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and streptococcal biofilm formation assay, respectively. One-way and two-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests were used to analyze the results (α=.05).
RESULTS
In this study, the surface treatment protocols and systems had significant effects on the resulting roughness. The CMF protocol produced the lowest roughness values, followed by CM and CF. Use of the JO system produced the lowest roughness values and the smallest biofilm mass, while the ME system produced the smallest partial transformation ratio. The ED group exhibited the highest roughness values, biofilm mass, and partial transformation ratio.
CONCLUSION
Stepwise surface treatment of monolithic zirconia, combined with careful polishing system selection, is essential to obtaining optimal microstructural and biological surface results.

Keyword

Zirconia; Dental finishing; Dental polishing; Roughness; Biofilm

MeSH Terms

Bacterial Adhesion
Biofilms*
Clinical Protocols
Dental Polishing
Microscopy, Atomic Force
X-Ray Diffraction

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Surface treatment protocols.

• 

  Fig. 2 Analyses of X-ray diffraction pattern of zirconia. M(−111): monoclinic peak at 28.175°; M(111): monoclinic peak at 31.468°; T(101): tetragonal peak at 29.807°; T1: refined T(101); T2: partially transformed T(101).

• 

  Fig. 3 Three-dimensional topography of monolithic zirconia specimens after surface treatment. (A) Jota; (B) Meisinger; (C) Edenta. C: coarse finishing alone; CM: coarse finishing and medium polishing; CF: coarse finishing and fine polishing; CMF: coarse finishing, medium polishing, and fine polishing.

• 

  Fig. 4 X-ray diffraction patterns after coarse finishing, medium polishing, and fine polishing, by polishing system. M(−111): monoclinic peak at 28.175°; M(111): monoclinic peak at 31.468°; T(101): tetragonal peak at 29.807°; T1: refined T(101); T2: partially transformed T(101).

• 

  Fig. 5 Crystal violet staining of streptococcal biofilm, by polishing system. (A) Jota, (B) Meisinger, (C) Edenta.

• 

  Fig. 6 Biofilm formation determined by crystal violet staining, by polishing system. *Statistical significance.

Reference

1. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013; 57:236–261. PMID: 24140561.

2. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: an overview. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:289–298. PMID: 17624420.

3. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:449–456. PMID: 15081551.

4. Hmaidouch R, Müller WD, Lauer HC, Weigl P. Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci. 2014; 6:241–246. PMID: 25059249.

5. Khayat W, Chebib N, Finkelman M, Khayat S, Ali A. Effect of grinding and polishing on roughness and strength of zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119:626–631. PMID: 28689911.

6. Alao AR, Stoll R, Song XF, Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Shibata Y, Yin L. Surface quality of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal in CAD/CAM milling, sintering, polishing and sandblasting processes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017; 65:102–116. PMID: 27569758.

7. 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; 40:979–988. PMID: 22892464.

8. 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. PMID: 16968383.

9. Sagsoz O, Demirci T, Demirci G, Sagsoz NP, Yildiz M. The effects of different polishing techniques on the staining resistance of CAD/CAM resin-ceramics. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8:417–422. PMID: 28018558.

10. Amer R, Kürklü D, Johnston W. Effect of simulated mastication on the surface roughness of three ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:260–265. PMID: 25957241.

11. Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:245–252. PMID: 18548965.

12. Mohammadi-Bassir M, Babasafari M, Rezvani MB, Jamshidian M. Effect of coarse grinding, overglazing, and 2 polishing systems on the flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:658–665. PMID: 28385438.

13. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J. 2004; 196:42–45. PMID: 14966503.

14. 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; 28:149–151. PMID: 25822299.

15. 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; 10:132–137. PMID: 29713434.

16. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am. 2007; 51:379–397. ixPMID: 17532918.

17. Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. A study on topographical properties and surface wettability of monolithic zirconia after use of diverse polishing instruments with different surface coatings. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27:429–442. PMID: 27469615.

18. Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. Evaluation of various polishing systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:440–449. PMID: 27061631.

19. Kobayashi K, Kuwajima H, Masaki T. Phase change and mechanical properties of ZrO₂-Y₂O₃ solid electrolyte after ageing. Solid State Ion. 1981; 3-4:489–493.

20. Gibson IR, Irvine JT. Qualitative X-ray diffraction analysis of metastable tetragonal (t′) zirconia. J Am Ceram Soc. 2001; 84:615–618.

21. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent. 2004; 32:91–99. PMID: 14749080.

22. Luthardt RG, Holzhüter M, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Schnapp JD, Kuhlisch E, Walter M. Reliability and properties of ground Y-TZP-zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res. 2002; 81:487–491. PMID: 12161462.

23. Toraya H, Yoshimura M, Somiya S. Calibration curve for quantitative analysis of the monoclinic-tetragonal ZrO₂ system by X-ray diffraction. J Am Ceram Soc. 1984; 67:C119–C121.

24. Garvie RC, Nicholson PS. Phase analysis in zirconia systems. J Am Ceram Soc. 1972; 55:303–305.

25. 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; 3:543–551.

26. Silva TM, Salvia AC, Carvalho RF, Pagani C, Rocha DM, Silva EG. Polishing for glass ceramics: which protocol? J Prosthodont Res. 2014; 58:160–170. PMID: 24684959.

27. Jing Z, Ke Z, Yihong L, Zhijian S. Effect of multistep processing technique on the formation of micro-defects and residual stresses in zirconia dental restorations. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23:206–212. PMID: 24118569.

28. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent. 2012; 6:198–205. PMID: 22509124.

29. Lanson B, Velde B. Decomposition of X-ray diffraction patterns: a convenient way to describe complex I/S diagenetic evolution. Clays Clay Miner. 1992; 40:629–643.

30. Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, Lim HP. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117:430–437. PMID: 28088308.

31. Lee BC, Jung GY, Kim DJ, Han JS. Initial bacterial adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011; 3:81–84. PMID: 21814616.

32. 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; 13:258–269. PMID: 11696906.

33. 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. PMID: 29142648.

34. Choi JW, Kim SY, Bae JH, Bae EB, Huh JB. In vitro study of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:244–251. PMID: 28874990.